Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why don't all young firms invest in R&D?

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the different impacts that some factors may exert on the probability that a small young firm invests intensively in R&D. Recently, an increasing amount of the literature makes reference to the vital role played by a small number of young firms in generating jobs and increasing efficiency levels. However, not all new firms invest in R&D. Departing from the definition of Young Innovative Companies (YICs, firms younger than 6 years old, fewer than 250 employees and with more than 15 % of their revenues invested in R&D activities), and with an extensive sample of the Spanish Community Innovation Survey between 2004 and 2010, we try to determine: (1) those factors that cause firms to become YICs (innovative young small firms) or Young Non-Innovative Companies (YNICs, moderately innovative young small firms), and (2) what is the difference in the impact of those factors between YICs and YNICs. Our results show that factors such as initial innovation capacity and cooperation in R&D projects enhance the probability of becoming a YIC. Nevertheless, factors such as export potential and market uncertainty may influence the decision to invest moderately and become a YNIC.

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

Notes

  1. For instance, empirical evidence from the photolithographic equipment industry confirms that for incremental innovations, incumbents spend significantly more on R&D; while for radical innovations entrants are more successful (Henderson 1993).

  2. Also there some interlinkages may appear between these factors. For instance, skilled workers are more likely to ‘absorb’ knowledge and consequently to reinforce absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).

  3. Recent evidence may be found in Helmers and Rogers (2010) who find that patenting increases the likelihood of survival in some sectors.

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1987). Innovation, market structure and firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 567–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P. & Carlsson, B. (2005). The missing link: The knowledge filter, entrepreneurship and endogenous growth. Papers on entrepreneurship, growth and public policy, Discussion papers on entrepreneurship, growth and public policy, wp2005-08.

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 701–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prant, S. (2009). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Harris, C., Howitt, P., & Vickers, J. (2001). Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. The Review of Economic Studies, 68(3), 467–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2005). Growth with quality-improving innovations: An integrated framework. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton, J., & Yao, D. (1994). Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. American Economic Review, 84(1), 190–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Cooperation-based innovators and peripheral cooperators: An empirical analysis of their characteristics and behaviour. Technovation, 30(3), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D. L. (1979). The job generation process. Report prepared by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change, Cambridge, MA.

  • Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., Mckelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpää, H. (2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 41, 913–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cincera, M., & Veugelers, R. (2013). Young leading innovators and the EU’s R&D intensity gap. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(2), 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A. (2009). The growth of firms: A survey of theories and empirical evidence. Camberley: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: The case of process and product R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D. & Delanote, J. (2012). Young innovative companies: The new high growth firms? ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 12–030.

  • Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., & Teece, D. J. (1998). Organizational competencies and the boundaries of the firm (pp. 281–302). In R. Arena and C. Longhi (eds) Markets and Organizations. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J., Hsu, D., & Stern, S. (2002). When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(4), 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2000). Incumbency and R&D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9(4), 485–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A. (1990). Innovation, technological opportunity, and market structure. Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 586–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P., & Machin, S. (1992). Do innovating firms outperform non-innovators? Business Strategy Review, 3(2), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A., & Mazzucato, M. (2001). Modelling the dynamics of industry populations. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 1003–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. G. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 72, 514–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmers, C., & Rogers, M. (2010). Innovation and the survival of new firms in the UK. Review of Industrial Organization, 36(3), 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Clark, K. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2010). Gazelles as job creators—A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35, 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heunks, F. J. (1998). Innovation, creativity and success. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., & Peters, B. (2012). Innovative capability and financing constraints for innovation: More money, more innovation? Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1126–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. A., Aldrich, H. E., Welbourne, T. M., & Williams, P. M. (2000). Guest editor’s comments special issue on human resource management and the SME: Toward a new synthesis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86(3), 562–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F. (Ed.). (2004). Sectoral systems of innovation: Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 724–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD publishing.

  • Reinganum, J. F. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73(4), 741–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roper, S. (1997). Product innovation and small business growth: A comparison of the strategies of German, UK and Irish companies. Small Business Economics, 9(6), 523–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. (1967). Research and development resource allocation under rivalry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(3), 359–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C., & Veugelers, R. (2010). On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 969–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper, 1975.

  • Segarra, A., & Arauzo, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segarra, A., García-Quevedo, J. & Teruel, M. (2013). Financial constraints and the failure of innovation projects, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, wp 06-2013.

  • Segarra, A. and Gombau, V. (2013). Young innovative firms and R&D strategies: is the Spanish case different? Working paper 6, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaona, A., & Pianta, M. (2008). Firm size and innovation in European manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (2008). The role of SMEs in innovation in the EU: A case for policy intervention? Review of Business and Economics, 53(3), 239–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynarczyk, P., & Thwaites, A. (1997). The economic performance, survival and non-survival of innovative small firms. In R. Oakey & S. Mukhtar (Eds.), New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s (Vol. 3). London: Paul Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Consolidated Group of Research 2009-SGR-907. Agustí Segarra and Mercedes Teruel acknowledge the support of the Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada. We are all grateful to Verònica Gombau for her research support. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Development Strategies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    David B. Audretsch

  2. Research Group of Industry and Territory, Department of Economics – CREIP, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Av. Universitat, 1, 43204, Reus, Spain

    Agustí Segarra & Mercedes Teruel

Authors
  1. David B. Audretsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agustí Segarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mercedes Teruel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agustí Segarra.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Matrix of Pearson correlation
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Audretsch, D.B., Segarra, A. & Teruel, M. Why don't all young firms invest in R&D?. Small Bus Econ 43, 751–766 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9561-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9561-9

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation