The Role of Liquidity Constraints in Fuelling The Demand-Pulled Innovation

Abstract

The motivation to classify industries in their effort to innovate with the structure of demand, lead to a theoretical controversy in innovative activity known as ‘demand-pull’ versus ‘technology-push’ forces of technical change. Previous empirical literature has provided evidence supporting demandpulled innovation both at the aggregate level and at the firm level. This paper studies a dynamic specification of the demand-pull hypothesis at the firm level, which takes into account both the within and the between effects across Turkish non-financial firms listed at Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) over a period of ten years (1998–2007). Moreover, the study also investigates the demand-innovation relationship in liquidity constrained firms since inducing an increase in the effort to innovate mostly depends on the funding of expensive and uncertain R&D activities. Our findings confirm the demand-pull hypothesis, yet the role of sales in inducing R&D expenditures is 99% significant in the overall sample. More specifically, liquidity constrained firms and firms not receiving public subsidies seem to be particularly sensitive to sales when deciding how much to spend on R&D

Keywords

• R&D expenditures, demand-pulled innovation, LSDVC estimator

References

1. Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991): “Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58: 277–297.
2. Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995): “Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error components models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68: 29–51.
3. Blundell, R. and Bond, S. (1998): “Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models”, Journal of Econometrics, 78(1): 115–143.
4. Bruno, G. (2005a): “Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models”, Economics Letters, 87: 361–366.
5. Bruno, G. (2005b): “Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel data models with a small number of individuals”, The Stata Journal, 5(4): 473–500.
6. Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht, A. (1999): “Keynes-plus? Effective demand and changes in firm-level R&D: an empirical note”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23: 385–391.
7. Bun, G. and Kiviet, J. F. (2003): “On the diminishing returns of higher order terms in asymptotic expansions of bias”, Economics Letters, 79: 145–152.
8. Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R. and Savona, M. (2006): “Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level analysis”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30: 435–458.

9. Cohen, W. M. and Levin, R. C. (1989): “Empirical studies on innovation and market structure”, In Schmalensee, R. and Willig, R.D. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization (Vol.2, pp. 1060–1107). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10. Crepon, B., Duguet, E. and Mairesse, J. (1998): “Research, Innovation, and Productivity: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level”, NBER Working Paper Series, No. 6696.
11. David, P. A., Hall, B. H. and Toole, A. A. (2000): “Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of econometric evidence”, Research Policy, 29: 497–529.
12. Geroski, P. and Walters, C. F. (1995): “Innovative activity over the business cycle”, Economic Journal, 105: 916–928.
13. Hall, B., Mairesse, J., Branstetter, L. and Crepon, B. (1999): “Does cash flow cause investment and R&D? An exploration using panel data for French, Japanese, and United States scientific firms”, in Audretsch, D. and Thurik, R. (eds.) Innovation, Industry Evolution and Employment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 129–156.
14. Kiviet, J. F. (1995): “On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68: 53–78. D 1 ( +
15. Kleinknecht, A. and Verspagen, B. (1990): “Demand and innovation: Schmookler re-examined”, Research Policy, 19: 387–394.
16. Kleinknecht, A., Van Montfort, K. and Brouwer, E. (2002): “The nontrivial choice between innovation indicators”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11: 109–121.
17. Scherer, F. M. (1982): “Demand-pull and technological invention: Schmookler revisited”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 30: 225–237.
18. Schmookler, J. (1966): “Invention and Economic Growth”, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
19. Schumpeter, J. (1942): “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”, New York, Harper Torchbooks.
20. Piva, M. and Vivarelli, M. (2007): “Is demand-pulled innovation equally important in different groups of firms?”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(5): 691–710.
21. Piva, M. and Vivarelli, M. (2009): “Demand-pulled innovation under liquidity constraints”, Applied Economics Letters, 16(3): 289–293.