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

Year 2010, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 1121 - 1128, 01.11.2010

Yeşim Üçdoğruk

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

• 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.
• Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995): “Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error components models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68: 29–51.
• Blundell, R. and Bond, S. (1998): “Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models”, Journal of Econometrics, 78(1): 115–143.
• Bruno, G. (2005a): “Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models”, Economics Letters, 87: 361–366.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Geroski, P. and Walters, C. F. (1995): “Innovative activity over the business cycle”, Economic Journal, 105: 916–928.
• 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.
• 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 ( +
• Kleinknecht, A. and Verspagen, B. (1990): “Demand and innovation: Schmookler re-examined”, Research Policy, 19: 387–394.
• Kleinknecht, A., Van Montfort, K. and Brouwer, E. (2002): “The nontrivial choice between innovation indicators”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11: 109–121.
• Scherer, F. M. (1982): “Demand-pull and technological invention: Schmookler revisited”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 30: 225–237.
• Schmookler, J. (1966): “Invention and Economic Growth”, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
• Schumpeter, J. (1942): “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”, New York, Harper Torchbooks.
• 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.
• Piva, M. and Vivarelli, M. (2009): “Demand-pulled innovation under liquidity constraints”, Applied Economics Letters, 16(3): 289–293.