IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/empeco/v52y2017i4d10.1007_s00181-016-1118-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation and institutional ownership revisited: an empirical investigation with count data models*

* This paper is a replication of an original study

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Berger

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Herbert Stocker

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Achim Zeileis

    (University of Innsbruck)

Abstract

By discriminating between a lazy manager and a career concerns hypothesis, Aghion et al. (Am Econ Rev 103(1):277–304, 2013. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.1.277 ) try to disentangle the link between innovation and institutional ownership. Citation-weighted patent counts are used as a proxy for innovation, which motivates the use of count data models. A replication in a narrow sense confirms their empirical results which are mainly based on Poisson models (i.e., with a single set of regression coefficients). However, when extending the model framework by count data hurdle models, it is shown that the two hurdle parts do not coincide—as they should under the Poisson model—but lead to different results. Nevertheless, a remarkably stable positive correlation of citation-weighted patents and institutional ownership across all model specifications can be shown.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Berger & Herbert Stocker & Achim Zeileis, 2017. "Innovation and institutional ownership revisited: an empirical investigation with count data models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1675-1688, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:empeco:v:52:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s00181-016-1118-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s00181-016-1118-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00181-016-1118-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00181-016-1118-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard W. Blundell & James L. Powell, 2004. "Endogeneity in Semiparametric Binary Response Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(3), pages 655-679.
    2. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Zeileis, Achim & Kleiber, Christian & Jackman, Simon, 2008. "Regression Models for Count Data in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 27(i08).
    4. Philippe Aghion & John Van Reenen & Luigi Zingales, 2013. "Innovation and Institutional Ownership," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 277-304, February.
    5. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    6. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    7. Oliver D. Hart, 1983. "The Market Mechanism as an Incentive Scheme," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 366-382, Autumn.
    8. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    9. Crepon, Bruno & Duguet, Emmanuel, 1997. "Research and development, competition and innovation pseudo-maximum likelihood and simulated maximum likelihood methods applied to count data models with heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 355-378, August.
    10. Comanor, William S & Scherer, Frederic M, 1969. "Patent Statistics as a Measure of Technical Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 392-398, May/June.
    11. Zeileis, Achim, 2006. "Object-oriented Computation of Sandwich Estimators," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 16(i09).
    12. Andriy Bodnaruk & Andrei Simonov, 2016. "Loss-Averse Preferences, Performance, and Career Success of Institutional Investors," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(11), pages 3140-3176.
    13. Fama, Eugene F, 1980. "Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(2), pages 288-307, April.
    14. Bengt Holmström, 1999. "Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 169-182.
    15. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2003. "Enjoying the Quiet Life? Corporate Governance and Managerial Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 1043-1075, October.
    16. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    17. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Georg Licht & Konrad Zoz, 1998. "Patents and R&D, An Econometric Investigation Using Applications for German, European and US Patents by German Companies," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 329-360.
    19. Basberg, Bjorn L., 1987. "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 131-141, August.
    20. Xiaoyan Xu & Chunlei Wang & Shijun Cheng, 2015. "Myopic Investor or Active Monitor? The Role of Institutional Investors in Corporate Innovation," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 6(2), pages 23-32, April.
    21. Lukas Menkhoff, 2002. "Institutional Investors: The External Costs of a Successful Innovation," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 907-933, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susanne Berger & Nathaniel Graham & Achim Zeileis, 2017. "Various Versatile Variances: An Object-Oriented Implementation of Clustered Covariances in R," Working Papers 2017-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    2. Unsal, Omer & Rayfield, Blake, 2019. "Institutional investors and medical innovation," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 190-205.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blanco, Iván & Wehrheim, David, 2017. "The bright side of financial derivatives: Options trading and firm innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 99-119.
    2. Bena, Jan & Ferreira, Miguel A & Matos, Pedro & Pires, Pedro, 2017. "Are foreign investors locusts? The long-term effects of foreign institutional ownership," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 122-146.
    3. Rong, Zhao & Wu, Xiaokai & Boeing, Philipp, 2017. "The effect of institutional ownership on firm innovation: Evidence from Chinese listed firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1533-1551.
    4. Choi, Paul Moon Sub & Chung, Chune Young & Vo, Xuan Vinh & Wang, Kainan, 2020. "Are better-governed firms more innovative? Evidence from Korea," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 263-279.
    5. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    6. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.
    7. Roychoudhury, Saurav & Bhowmik, Anuj & Chattopadhyay, Srobonti, 2015. "Innovation, Governance and Competition," MPRA Paper 61557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Younge, Kenneth A. & Tong, Tony W., 2018. "Competitive pressure on the rate and scope of innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 162-181.
    9. Clò, Stefano & Florio, Massimo & Rentocchini, Francesco, 2020. "Firm ownership, quality of government and innovation: Evidence from patenting in the telecommunication industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    10. Amore, Mario Daniele & Schneider, Cédric & Žaldokas, Alminas, 2013. "Credit supply and corporate innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 835-855.
    11. Fu, Yishu, 2019. "Independent directors, CEO career concerns, and firm innovation: Evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Fabrizio Rossi & Richard J. Cebula, 2015. "Ownership Structure and R&D: An Empirical Analysis of Italian listed companies," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 68(275), pages 297-326.
    13. Beneito, Pilar, 2006. "The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 502-517, May.
    14. Ding, Xiaoya (Sara) & Guo, Mengmeng & Kuai, Yicheng & Niu, Geng, 2023. "Social trust and firm innovation: Evidence from China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 474-493.
    15. Kamel Mellahi & Adrian Wilkinson, 2010. "A Study of the Association between Level of Slack Reduction Following Downsizing and Innovation Output," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 483-508, May.
    16. Verspagen, Bert & Schoenmakers, Wilfred, 2000. "The Spatial Dimension of Knowledge Spillovers in Europe: Evidence from Firm Patenting Data," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Nnaemeka Vincent Emodi & Girish Panchakshara Murthy & Chinenye Comfort Emodi & Adaeze Saratu Augusta Emodi, 2017. "A Literature Review on the Factors Influencing Patent Propensity," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(03), pages 1-30, June.
    18. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    19. Raymond J. Fisman & Rakesh Khurana & Matthew Rhodes-Kropf & Soojin Yim, 2014. "Governance and CEO Turnover: Do Something or Do the Right Thing?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(2), pages 319-337, February.
    20. Claudine Gartenberg & Lamar Pierce, 2017. "Subprime governance: Agency costs in vertically integrated banks and the 2008 mortgage crisis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 300-321, February.

    Replication

    This item is a replication of:
  • Philippe Aghion & John Van Reenen & Luigi Zingales, 2013. "Innovation and Institutional Ownership," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 277-304, February.

    • More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Institutional ownership; Count data; Hurdle model; Replication;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Innovation and institutional ownership revisited: an empirical investigation with count data models (Emp Econ 2017) in ReplicationWiki

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:empeco:v:52:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s00181-016-1118-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.