Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technological Regimes and Firm Survival: Evidence Across Sectors and Over Time

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In addition to the usual variables representing firm- and industry-specific features that impact the firm’s survival, this paper uses three R&D related variables to reflect two Schumpeterian technological regimes: creative destruction (the entrepreneurial regime) and creative accumulation (the routinized regime). After controlling for age, size, entry barriers, capital intensity, the profit margin, the concentration ratio, the profit-cost ratio and entry rates, the empirical results confirm the theoretical relationship between technological regimes and the survival rate of new firms: new firms are more likely to survive under the entrepreneurial regime. Moreover, this effect is larger within the younger cohorts of firms than within the older ones.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal R., Audretsch D. B. (1999) The Two Views of Small Firms in Industry Dynamics: A Reconciliation. Economics Letters 62:245–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal R., Audretsch D. B. (2001) Does Entry Size Matter: The Impact of Technology and Product Life-cycle on Firm Survival. Journal of Industrial Economics 49:21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrighetti A., Vivarelli M. (1999) The Role of Innovation in the Post-entry Performance of New Small Firms: Evidence from Italy. Southern Economic Journal 65:927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch D. B. (1991) New-firm Survival and the Technological Regime. The Review of Economics and Statistics 73(3):441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch D. B. (1995) Innovation, Growth and Survival. International Journal of Industrial Organization 13(4):441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch D. B. (2001) Research Issues Relating to Structure, Competition and Performance of Small Technology-Based Firms. Small Business Economics 16:37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch D. B., Santarelli E., Vivarelli M. (1999) Start-up Size and Industrial Dynamics: Some Evidence from Italian Manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 17:965–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin W. L., Scott J. T. (1987) Market Structure and Technological Change. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi S. F., Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (2000) Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. The Economic Journal 110:388–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates T. (1990) Entrepreneur Human Capital Inputs and Small Business Longevity. Review of Economics and Statistics 72:551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabral L. (1995) Sunk Costs, Firm Size and Firm Growth. Journal of Industrial Economics 43:161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabral, L. 1997, ‹Entry Mistakes’, Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 1729.

  • Caves R. E. (1998) Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms. Journal of Economic Literature 36:1947–1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo J. L. (2006) Testing Gibrat’s Law for Small, Young and Innovating Firms. Small Business Economics 26:117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cressy R. (2006) Why Do Most Firms Die Young? Small Business Economics 26:103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G. (1988) Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature 26:1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne T., Roberts M. J., Samuelson L. (1989) The Growth and Failure of U.S. Manufacturing Plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics 104(4):671–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne P., Hughes A. (1994) Age, Size, Growth and Survival: UK Companies in the 1980s. Journal of Industrial Economics 42(2):115–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endres A. M., Woods C. R. (2006) Modern Theories of Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Comparison and Appraisal. Small Business Economics 26:189–202.

    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 

  • Evans D. S. (1987a) The Relationship between Firm Growth Size and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries. Journal of Industrial Economics 35(4):567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans D. S. (1987b) Test of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth. Journal of Political Economy 95(4):657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foti A., Vivarelli M. (1994) An Econometric Test of the Self-employment Model: The Case of Italy. Small Business Economics 6:81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski P. A. (1995) What Do We Know about Entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization 13(4):421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski P. A. (1989) Entry, Innovation and Productivity Growth. Review of Economics and Statistics 71(4):333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall B. H. (1987) The Relationship between Firm Size and Firm Growth in the US Manufacturing Sector. Journal of Industrial Economics 35(4):583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic B. (1982) Selection and the Evolution of Industry. Econometrica 50(3):649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotti F., Santarelli E., Vivarelli M. (2003) Does Gibrat’s Law Hold Among Young, Small Firms? Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13:213–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (1993) Technological Regimes and Firm Behavior. Industrial and Corporate Change 2(1):45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (1995) Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19:47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (1999) Technological Entry, Exit and Survival: Empirical Analysis of Patent Data. Research Policy 28:643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield E. F. (1962) Entry, Innovation and the Growth of Firms. American Economic Review 52(5):1023–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuda T. (2006) The Determinants of Latent Entrepreneurship in Japan. Small Business Economics 26:227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton W. I. Jr., Moore W. T. (2006) The Influence of Entrepreneurial Risk Assessment on Venture Launch or Growth Decisions. Small Business Economics 26:215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi S. (2006) Sectoral Differences in Plant Start-up Size in the Finnish Economy. Small Business Economics 26:39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakes A., Ericson R. (1998) Empirical Implications of Alternative Models of Firm Dynamics. Journal of Economic Theory 79:1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid Gavin C. (1991) Staying in Business. International Journal of Industrial Organization 9:545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey D. (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton J. (1997) Gibrat’s Legacy. Journal of Economic Literature 35:40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk M. (2000) Technological Regimes and Industrial Dynamics: The Evidence from Dutch Manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change 9:173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli M. (1991) The Birth of New Enterprises. Small Business Economics 3:215–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli M. (2004) Are All the Potential Entrepreneurs So Good? Small Business Economics 23:41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter S. G. (1984) Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 5:287–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on earlier drafts; the usual caveats apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Financ, Jin-Wen Institute of Technology, 99, Anjhong Rd., Sindian City, Taipei County, 231, Taiwan

    Pei-Chou Lin

  2. Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, 128, Sec. 2, Sinica Rd., Nankang, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Deng-Shing Huang

Authors
  1. Pei-Chou Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deng-Shing Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deng-Shing Huang.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Correlation Coefficients (N = 129) among the Independent Variables.

 

ENTR

RDN

RDI

CORR

PCM

KQR

HH

MES

ENTR

1

       

RDN

−0.00393

1

      

RDI

−0.03195

−0.01074

1

     

CORR

−0.0383

0.06797

0.47175**

1

    

PCM

−0.16751**

−0.08181

0.23571**

−0.11074

1

   

KQR

−0.38245**

0.04593

−0.17847**

−0.22175**

0.0445

1

  

HH

−0.09514**

−0.10963

0.22718**

0.00458

0.63014**

−0.11507

1

 

MES

−0.0242

0.07333

−0.3696**

−0.52201**

0.10693

0.21563**

−0.03498

1

  1. Note: The superscripts ‹*’ and ‹**’ denote significance levels of 10% and 5%, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, PC., Huang, DS. Technological Regimes and Firm Survival: Evidence Across Sectors and Over Time. Small Bus Econ 30, 175–186 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9026-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9026-x

Key words

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation