Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

What does (not) characterize persistent corporate high-growth?

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Theoretical and empirical studies of firm–industry dynamics have extensively focused on the process of growth. Theory predicts innovation, efficiency, profitability and financial status as the central channels through which firms can possibly achieve outstanding growth performance. The question is whether such high-growth performance is sustained over time and, if so, what are the factors enabling persistent high-growth patterns. Exploiting panels of Italian, Spanish, French and UK firms, we relate high growth, persistent high growth and other growth patterns to measures of efficiency, innovativeness, profitability and financial conditions. We find that high-growth firms are characterized by higher productivity and leverage, and that persistent high-growth firms do not systematically differ from other high-growth firms in none of the considered economic and financial dimensions. The findings are robust across countries, manufacturing and services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the empirical literature on firms dynamics, the survival bias is often referred to as attrition bias. To be precise, we should not say that we compare high-growth firms with “other firms”, but rather high-growth and surviving firms with other and surviving firms. In fact, it could be the case that this distinction does matter in some instances. Due to the nature of our database, however, we are not in the position to test this hypothesis. We omit any further reference to this issue in what follows.

  2. The sector of principal activity in the AMADEUS dataset is time invariant, measured in the last available year. Manufacturing includes section C, while services include sections G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, R, S.

  3. The normalization implicitly removes common trends, such as inflation and business cycles effects in sectoral demand. This is in line with many previous studies on firm growth. Also notice that both employment and sales growth rates distributions display the usual fat-tails shape already found in previous studies. In case of employment growth, maximum likelihood estimates of the shape parameter b of a power exponential distribution (see Bottazzi and Secchi 2006) range indeed from 0.45 for French firms to 0.87 for UK firms. The distributions of sales growth rates have b very close to 1 in all countries, thus close to a Laplace distribution. The estimates are stable over the years of the sample period.

  4. One year is obviously lost in computing the log differences.

  5. The number of PHG firms increases, but it never exceeds the 5 % of the total population, depending on sector or country.

  6. Sales and employment are indeed the most frequently chosen size proxies in the literature. They are relatively easily accessible, they can be compared within and between industries (for instance, physical output does not benefit of the same property) and they are not too much related to the capital intensity of the industry (as opposed to total assets).

  7. A large literature indeed examines the role of financial constraints on firm investment and growth, since the seminal contribution in Fazzari et al. (1988). See Almeida et al. (2004) and Farre-Mensa and Ljungqvist (2013) for discussion of empirical measurement of financial constraints, and Bottazzi et al. (2014) for a study of the effect of access to credit on growth dynamics.

  8. We do not discuss here the determinants of differential innovativeness and efficiency. A large literature does (reviewed in Syverson 2011), while we take efficiency and innovation as summary measures of firm competitiveness stemming from heterogeneities in within-firm processes. Similarly, one could also refer to managerial literature on resource-based or capability-based view of the firm to search for other determinants of growth, high growth and persistent high growth. These theories offer complementary explanations, but we do not have data to measure any of these more detailed firm characteristics.

  9. The estimates are performed pooling firms within the same 2-digit sector, taking number of employees and fixed tangible assets as measures of labor and capital inputs, respectively, and value added as the proxy for output, while we use the cost of material inputs as the instrument to control for endogeneity of labor inputs. As an alternative measure of efficiency, we have also considered a standard labor productivity index computed as the ratio between value added and number of employees. Results are in line with those presented along this work.

  10. In this sense, the variable has some issues related to mixing different activities and also concerning difficulties in going from book to real value of such assets. In this choice of innovation proxy, we are constrained from the data, however. AMADEUS is known to lack detailed information about R&D. R&D expenses are present, in principle, but missing for the vast majority of firms. Intangible assets have instead a good coverage and represent a suitable alternative proxy, repeatedly adopted (despite limitations) in innovation studies (see, e.g., Hall 1999). In a robustness check, we also used the number of new patent applications filed (at whatsoever patent office worldwide) by the sampled firms in the years 2000–2005. Only a minority did applied for patent, however, considerably reducing the number of firms available for estimation, and indeed, we could only replicate the estimates pooling data across countries and sectors. Our main conclusions are not affected. The results are available upon request.

  11. Results do not change if we use employment.

  12. A drawback of the FP test, common to other nonparametric tests, is the need to have a relatively large sample size to achieve the same power of parametric tests for difference in means. However, our conclusions hold even if we apply a standard two-sample Student’s t test for equality of means across heteroskedastic samples, or the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test for equality of medians.

  13. Recall indeed that the two sets of PHG and HG firms are non-nested. See Sect. 5 for a discussion of alternative estimation methods.

  14. Since the variables are in z-scores, the marginal effects at the sample mean of the covariates are proportional to the corresponding coefficients. Standard errors are obtained out of 100 bootstrap runs, which were enough to obtain convergence. As a further check, we have also computed the usual sandwich-White type of robust standard errors, obtaining the same patterns of statistical significance. The same holds for all the analysis presented in the rest of the paper.

  15. We also estimated our baseline multinomial probit augmented with dummies distinguishing the firms according to the innovative characteristics of their sector of activity. For manufacturing, we experimented with dummies for low-tech vs. high-tech industries (EUROSTAT classification) and distinguishing by the four classical Pavitt (1984) taxonomy classes. For services, we used dummies for KIS versus non-KIS sectors (EUROSTAT taxonomy). The results about the main structural and demographic characteristics remained unchanged. Moreover, sectoral dummies turned out as statistically significant only in few cases, thus providing a weak contribution to predict persistence of high-growth status. In a further robustness check, we also included value added over sales as an indirect proxy for the degree of vertical integration. The results confirm our main conclusion about the lacking explanatory power of non-demographic firm characteristics. Finally, since AMADEUS has limited coverage of micro-firms, and this issue is particularly problematic in all countries for single-employee firms, we have re-estimated our main model excluding firms with only one employee. Also in this case, our main conclusion is confirmed. All these additional analyses are available upon request.

  16. An issue of reverse causality may still be present if one thinks that initial firm characteristics in years the 2004–2005 are not predetermined with respect to growth status in the following years. Although our empirical design does not allow to test this assumption, it seems reasonable that this concern is only valid for the very first years of the 2006–2011 period, and the relatively long period we use to define the growth status should cure for most of this issue.

  17. And the literature already does, as mentioned above.

  18. To our knowledge, methods controlling for rare-events are not available for multiple discrete choice models, mimicking our preferred multinomial setting. Moreover, a different binary model where we group “other firms” together with HG firms into a control category of “Non-PHG firms” would artificially increase the probability that PHG firms differ, while our main interest lies into genuine differences between HG and PHG firms.

  19. In unreported estimates, we repeated the two-step conditional probit and the rare-event logit analysis also separately by manufacturing and services. Results were in accordance with the main conclusions drawn from multinomial probit estimates presented in the previous Section.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Mueller, P. (2008). Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice, gazelles and elephants. Small Business Economics, 30, 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., Campello, M., & Weisbach, M. S. (2004). The cash flow sensitivity of cash. Journal of Finance, 59, 1777–1804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Coad, A., & Segarra, A. (2014). Firm growth and innovation. Small Business Economics, 43, 743–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1997). On flipping coins and making technology choices: Luck as an explanation of technological foresight and oversight. In R. Garud, P. R. Nayyar, & Z. B. Shapira (Eds.), Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, S., Pellegrino, G., & Tamagni, F. (2016). Innovation Strategies and Firm Growth, LEM Working Papers 2016/03. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

  • Bottazzi, G., Coad, A., Jacoby, N., & Secchi, A. (2011). Corporate Growth and Industrial Dynamics: Evidence from French Manufacturing. Applied Economics, 43, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottazzi, G., & Secchi, A. (2006). Explaining the distribution of firms growth rates. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottazzi, G., Secchi, A., & Tamagni, F. (2014). Financial constraints and firm dynamics. Small Business Economics, 42, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capasso, M., Cefis, E., & Frenken, K. (2013). On the existence of persistently outperforming firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 997–1036.

  • Coad, A. (2007). A closer look at serial growth rate correlation. Review of Industrial Organization, 31, 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., & Hölzl, W. (2009). On the autocorrelation of growth rates. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9, 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37, 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2015). Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role? Research Policy.

  • Cooley, T. F., & Quadrini, V. (2001). Financial markets and firm dynamics. American Economic Review, 91, 1286–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daunfeldt, S.-O., & Halvarsson, D. (2015). Are high-growth firms one-hit wonders? Evidence from Sweden. Small Business Economics, 44, 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Henrekson, M. (2002). Determinants of the prevalance of start-ups and high-growth firms. Small Business Economics, 19, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F. (2006). Measuring growth: Methodological considerations and empirical results. In P. Davidsson, F. Delmar, & J. Wiklund (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Marsili, O., Orsenigo, L., & Salvatore, R. (1995). Learning, market selection and evolution of industrial structures. Small Business Economics, 7, 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R., & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Review of Economic Studies, 62, 53–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farre-Mensa, J., & Ljungqvist, A. (2013). Do measures of Financial Constraints Measure Financial Constraints? NBER Working Paper 19551, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Fazzari, S. M., Hubbard, R. G., & Petersen, B. C. (1988). Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1988, 141–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligner, M. A., & Policello, G. E. (1981). Robust rank procedures for the Behrens–Fisher problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 141–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garsaa, A., & Levratto, N. (2015). Do labor tax rebates facilitate firm growth? An empirical study on French establishments in the manufacturing industry, 2004–2011. Small Business Economics, 45, 613–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (1999). Innovation and Market Value, NBER Working Papers 6984. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  • Hölzl, W. (2009). Is the R&D behaviour of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries. Small Business Economics, 33, 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölzl, W. (2014). Persistence, survival, and growth: A closer look at 20 years of fast-growing firms in Austria. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 199–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2013). The geography of Employment Growth: The Support Network for Gazelle IPOs. Report by the office of advocacy, US Small Business Administration.

  • Luttmer, E. G. J. (2007). Selection, growth and the size distribution of firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1103–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, S. J. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. London, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C., Storey, D. J., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy. Small Business Economics, 35, 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral pattern of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimke, A., & Mitusch, K. (2011). Gazelles-High-growth companies. EUROPE INNOVA-Sectoral Innovation Watch Report Final report, European Commission.

  • Schreyer, P. (2000). High-growth firms and employment, Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2000/03, OECD Publishing.

  • Segarra, A., Teruel, M. (2014). High-growth firms and innovation: an empirical analysis for Spanish firms. Small Business Economics (pp. 1–17).

  • Silverberg, G., Dosi, G., & Orsenigo, L. (1988). Innovation, diversity and diffusion: A self-organisation model. Economic Journal, 98, 1032–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stangler, D. (2010). High-Growth Firms and the Future of the American Economy. Firm formation and economic growth, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Research series.

  • Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49, 326–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables. Economics Letters, 104, 112–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Bottazzi.

Additional information

We wish to thank Fabiana Moreno, Alex Coad, Timothy Folta, Luca Grilli, Werner Hölzl, Francesco Lissoni and Marco Vivarelli for insightful comments to earlier drafts. We are also grateful for discussions with and comments from participants to the 2014 GCW—Governance of a Complex World Workshop (Turin, Italy), the 2014 meeting of the EARIE—European Association for Research in Industrial Economics (Milan Bocconi, Italy), the 2014 Schumpeter Society Conference (Jena, Germany), the 2014 DRUID annual conference (Copenhagen, Denmark), and the 2014 Workshop I&O: Theory, Empirics and Experiments (Alberobello, Italy). Usual disclaimers apply.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11 Number of firms by country and sector—manufacturing
Table 12 Number of firms by country and sector—Service

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bianchini, S., Bottazzi, G. & Tamagni, F. What does (not) characterize persistent corporate high-growth?. Small Bus Econ 48, 633–656 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9790-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9790-1

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation