IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iab/iabfob/202012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovationen in Deutschland - Wie lassen sich Unterschiede in den Betrieben erklären? : Ergebnisse aus dem IAB-Betriebspanel 2019

Author

Listed:
  • Dettmann, Eva

    (IWH)

  • Fackler, Daniel

    (IWH)

  • Müller, Steffen

    (IWH)

  • Neuschäffer, Georg

    (IWH)

  • Slavtchev, Viktor

    (IWH)

  • Leber, Ute

    (Institute for Employment Research (IAB), Nuremberg, Germany)

  • Schwengler, Barbara

    (Institute for Employment Research (IAB), Nuremberg, Germany)

Abstract

"The results of the IAB Establishment Panel survey for 2019 - i.e. the period before the outbreak of the Covid 19 pandemic - still draw a positive picture of the establishments’ economic situation and the overall employment development in Germany. The trend in total employment is still positive, the labor market dynamics has slightly increased compared to previous years. Innovation-oriented establishments show considerably higher growth rates in employment and a slightly higher employee turnover than companies without innovations. Moreover, an increase in average establishment wages is apparent. The structure of formal occupational skill requirements has hardly changed overall, but clear differences between the sectors are observable. In addition, there is a correlation between the occupational skill requirements and the innovative strength of the establishments, with innovative establishments requiring more highly qualified employees. The demand for skilled employees continued to rise in 2019, reaching 2.8 million people; and it is particularly high in the high-employment sectors and in innovation-oriented establishments. The share of vacant positions for skilled labour (the non-occupancy quota) is also rising, although the increase is slightly slowing down compared to previous years. More than one third of the German establishments are innovators. Overall, the improvement of own products or services is the most common type of innovation. In large establishments, process innovations play a comparatively important role, whereas the share of radical innovations (i.e. products/services that do not yet exist on the market) decreases with company size. Besides sector-specific differences, a number of further establishments’ characteristics influence innovation activities. A multivariate analysis shows that the size of the establishment, access to international markets, the intensity of competition and access to fast Internet connections foster innovation activities. In addition, there are clear differences between East German and West German establishments. Also the employment structure, especially the share of highly qualified employees and employees in research and development, is important. The survey results also show that, in addition to high investment costs and organizational problems, the shortage of appropriately qualified employees is increasingly becoming an obstacle to planned innovations. On the other hand, restrictions in debt financing are less important, even for small and/or East German companies. The proportion of establishments authorized to provide in-house vocational training that actually train apprentices is increasing, particularly in East Germany. However, the share of vacant apprenticeships also increases markedly to about one fourth in West German establishments and more than one-third in East Germany. The recruitment rate of successful graduates is more than three quarters. The findings regarding further education remain more or less stable over the last years. The share of establishments supporting further education of their employees is about fifty percent, the proportion of employees participating in training is about one third, and slightly higher in East German establishments. Furthermore, a correlation between the frequency of training participation and the qualification level of the employees is still observable." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Suggested Citation

  • Dettmann, Eva & Fackler, Daniel & Müller, Steffen & Neuschäffer, Georg & Slavtchev, Viktor & Leber, Ute & Schwengler, Barbara, 2020. "Innovationen in Deutschland - Wie lassen sich Unterschiede in den Betrieben erklären? : Ergebnisse aus dem IAB-Betriebspanel 2019," IAB-Forschungsbericht 202012, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
  • Handle: RePEc:iab:iabfob:202012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doku.iab.de/forschungsbericht/2020/fb1220.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brandenburg, Bianca & Günther, Jutta & Schneider, Lutz, 2007. "Does Qualification Drive Innovation? A Microeconometric Analysis Using Linked-employer-employee Data," IWH Discussion Papers 10/2007, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    2. Joachim Wagner & Lena Koller & Claus Schnabel, 2008. "Sind mittelständische Betriebe der Jobmotor der deutschen Wirtschaft?," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 88(2), pages 130-135, February.
    3. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    4. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2020. "The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms [“Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(2), pages 645-709.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
    6. Nicholas Bloom & Mirko Draca & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Trade Induced Technical Change? The Impact of Chinese Imports on Innovation, IT and Productivity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(1), pages 87-117.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    9. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2004. "Entry and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Microlevel Panel Data," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 265-276, 04/05.
    10. Ryan A. Decker & John Haltiwanger & Ron S. Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2016. "Declining Business Dynamism: What We Know and the Way Forward," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 203-207, May.
    11. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    12. Baumann, Julian & Kritikos, Alexander S., 2016. "The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1263-1274.
    13. Martin Ganco & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis & Rajshree Agarwal, 2015. "More stars stay, but the brightest ones still leave: Job hopping in the shadow of patent enforcement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 659-685, May.
    14. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    15. Davis, Steven J. & Haltiwanger, John, 1999. "Gross job flows," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 41, pages 2711-2805, Elsevier.
    16. Thomas Rothe, 2010. "Tägliche Dynamik auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 90(1), pages 64-66, January.
    17. Melanie Arntz & Terry Gregory & Ulrich Zierahn, 2016. "The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 189, OECD Publishing.
    18. O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), 1999. "Handbook of Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    19. Dummert Sandra & Leber Ute & Schwengler Barbara, 2019. "Unfilled Training Positions in Germany – Regional and Establishment-Specific Determinants," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(4), pages 661-701, August.
    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. Leber, Ute & Schwengler, Barbara, 2021. "Betriebliche Ausbildung in Deutschland: Unbesetzte Ausbildungsplätze und vorzeitig gelöste Verträge erschweren Fachkräftesicherung (Apprenticeship Training in Germany: Unfilled training positions and ," IAB-Kurzbericht 202103, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].

    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. J. David Brown & Gustavo A. Crespi & Leonardo Iacovone & Luca Marcolin, 2018. "Decomposing firm-level productivity growth and assessing its determinants: evidence from the Americas," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1571-1606, December.
    2. Dettmann, Eva & Fackler, Daniel & Müller, Steffen & Neuschäffer, Georg & Slavtchev, Viktor & Leber, Ute & Schwengler, Barbara, 2019. "Fehlende Fachkräfte in Deutschland - Unterschiede in den Betrieben und mögliche Erklärungsfaktoren : Ergebnisse aus dem IAB-Betriebspanel 2018," IAB-Forschungsbericht 201910, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    3. Richard Bräuer & Matthias Mertens & Viktor Slavtchev, 2023. "Import competition and firm productivity: Evidence from German manufacturing," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 2285-2305, August.
    4. Dan Andrews & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Capital, Innovation and Resource Allocation," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1046, OECD Publishing.
    5. Marc J. Melitz & Stephen J. Redding, 2021. "Trade and innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp1777, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. Stiebale, Joel & Vencappa, Dev, 2022. "Import competition and vertical integration: Evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    7. Bianca Barbaro & Giorgio Massari & Patrizio Tirelli, 2022. "Who killed business dynamism in the U.S.?," Working Papers 494, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2022.
    8. Bettina Becker, 2013. "The Determinants of R&D Investment: A Survey of the Empirical Research," Discussion Paper Series 2013_09, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Sep 2013.
    9. Berlingieri, Giuseppe & Blanchenay, Patrick & Criscuolo, Chiara, 2024. "The great divergence(s)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    10. Li, Xiaogang, 2020. "Innovation, market valuations, policy uncertainty and trade: Theory and evidence," ISU General Staff Papers 202001010800009179, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Jihyun Eum, 2018. "Upgrading Product Quality: The Impact of Tariffs and Standards," Working Papers 2018-10, Economic Research Institute, Bank of Korea.
    12. Flach, Lisandra & Gräf, Fabian, 2020. "The impact of trade agreements on world export prices," Munich Reprints in Economics 70372, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    13. Elena Podrecca, 2013. "Riforme del mercato dei prodotti e crescita della produttivit?. Teoria ed evidenza empirica," ECONOMIA E SOCIET? REGIONALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 10-41.
    14. Cathy Ge Bao & Maggie Xiaoyang Chen, 2018. "Foreign Rivals Are Coming to Town: Responding to the Threat of Foreign Multinational Entry," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 120-157, October.
    15. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2018. "Internationalisation, innovation and productivity in services: evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(3), pages 585-615, August.
    16. Impullitti, Giammario & Akcigit, Ufuk & Ates, Sina T., 2018. "Innovation and Trade Policy in a Globalized World," CEPR Discussion Papers 15804, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    18. Maria Bas & Åsa Johansson & Fabrice Murtin & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 2016. "The effects of input tariffs on productivity: panel data evidence for OECD countries," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 152(2), pages 401-424, May.
    19. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    20. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 329-340.

    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:iab:iabfob:202012. 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: IAB, Geschäftsbereich Wissenschaftliche Fachinformation und Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iabbbde.html .

    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.