IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed006/121.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Democratization of U.S. Research and Development after 1980

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Hunt

    (Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia)

  • Leonard I. Nakamura

Abstract

Using Compustat data, we document that prior to 1980, large R&D per-forming firms had higher R&D intensity (R&D/Sales) than small firms in the same industries. Over the course of the next two decades, in these same in-dustries, small firms came to rival and even surpass large firms in terms of R&D intensity. During this period, corporate R&D intensity nearly doubled and most of the aggregate increase is due to the substantial increase in R&D intensity among small firms. Little of the change in composition is explained by changes in the industrial distribution of R&D. Why did small firms increase their R&D after 1980 and not before? We argue that, after 1980, small firms were able to compete on better terms in industries already dominated by large firms. We show that the patterns we observe in the data are consistent with a straightforward dynamic model of R&D with falling barriers to entry. But what barriers fell? We argue the shift in R&D intensity by small firms was largely due to the electronics revolution. Prior to the 1980s, a large corporate sales and clerical force was an essential factor for the rapid and widespread distribution of new products. This technology clearly favored large, established firms. But the electronics revolution obviated the need for these factors, making entry easier.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Hunt & Leonard I. Nakamura, 2006. "The Democratization of U.S. Research and Development after 1980," 2006 Meeting Papers 121, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  • Handle: RePEc:red:sed006:121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.red-files-public.s3.amazonaws.com/meetpapers/2006/paper_121.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Y. Campbell & Martin Lettau & Burton G. Malkiel & Yexiao Xu, 2001. "Have Individual Stocks Become More Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(1), pages 1-43, February.
    2. Diego A. Comin & Thomas Philippon, 2006. "The Rise in Firm-Level Volatility: Causes and Consequences," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2005, Volume 20, pages 167-228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1347-1393, July.
    4. Hall, Bronwyn H., 1993. "Industrial Research During the 1980s: Did the Rate of Return Fall?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt33d879r9, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    5. Mark R. Huson & Robert Parrino & Laura T. Starks, 2001. "Internal Monitoring Mechanisms and CEO Turnover: A Long‐Term Perspective," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(6), pages 2265-2297, December.
    6. Cockburn, Iain & Henderson, Rebecca, 1994. "Racing to Invest? The Dynamics of Competition in Ethical Drug Discovery," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 481-519, Fall.
    7. 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.
    8. Jeremy Greenwood & Boyan Jovanovic, 1999. "The IT Revolution and the Stock Market," NBER Working Papers 6931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Bronwyn H. Hall, 1993. "Industrial Research during the 1980s: Did the Rate of Return Fall?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 24(2 Microec), pages 289-343.
    10. Lev, Baruch & Sougiannis, Theodore, 1996. "The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 107-138, February.
    11. Jeffrey I. Bernstein & M. Ishaq Nadiri, 1989. "Research and Development and Intra-industry Spillovers: An Empirical Application of Dynamic Duality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(2), pages 249-267.
    12. Grabowski, Henry G & Baxter, Nevins D, 1973. "Rivalry in Industrial Research and Development," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 209-235, July.
    13. Hayashi, Fumio, 1982. "Tobin's Marginal q and Average q: A Neoclassical Interpretation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 213-224, January.
    14. Mark Bils & Peter J. Klenow, 2001. "The Acceleration of Variety Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 274-280, May.
    15. repec:bla:jemstr:v:3:y:1994:i:3:p:481-519:a is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:hoo:wpaper:e-93-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    2. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    3. Gupta, Kartick & Banerjee, Rajabrata & Onur, Ilke, 2017. "The effects of R&D and competition on firm value: International evidence," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 391-404.
    4. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    5. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Oriani, R, 2006. "Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8wc513c1, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    6. Oh, Jong-Min, 2017. "Absorptive capacity, technology spillovers, and the cross-section of stock returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 146-164.
    7. Rui Castro & Gian Luca Clementi & Yoonsoo Lee, 2015. "Cross Sectoral Variation in the Volatility of Plant Level Idiosyncratic Shocks," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 1-29, March.
    8. Lin, Xiaoji, 2012. "Endogenous technological progress and the cross-section of stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 411-427.
    9. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir & Saeed Moshiri, 2021. "Innovation spillover and merger decisions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2419-2448, November.
    10. Stephen H. Penman & Xiao-Jun Zhang, 2021. "Connecting book rate of return to risk and return: the information conveyed by conservative accounting," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 391-423, March.
    11. Francesco Venturini & Ana Rincon-Aznar & Dr Michela Vecchi, 2013. "ICT as a general purpose technology: spillovers, absorptive capacity and productivity performance," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 416, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    12. Rui Castro & Gian Luca Clementi & Yoonsoo Lee, 2008. "Cross-sectoral variation in firm-level idiosyncratic risk," Working Papers (Old Series) 0812, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    13. Jason G. Cummins, 2005. "A New Approach to the Valuation of Intangible Capital," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 47-72, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Coad, Alex, 2019. "Persistent heterogeneity of R&D intensities within sectors: Evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50.
    15. Chan, Konan & Lin, Yueh-hsiang & Wang, Yanzhi, 2015. "The information content of R&D reductions," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 131-155.
    16. Peters, Ryan H. & Taylor, Lucian A., 2017. "Intangible capital and the investment-q relation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 251-272.
    17. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Oriani, Raffaele, 2006. "Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 971-993, September.
    18. Andrei, Daniel & Mann, William & Moyen, Nathalie, 2019. "Why did the q theory of investment start working?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 251-272.
    19. Ewens, Michael & Peters, Ryan & Wang, Sean, 2019. "Measuring Intangible Capital with Market Prices," SocArXiv kvp2f, Center for Open Science.
    20. Ian Goldin & Pantelis Koutroumpis & François Lafond & Julian Winkler, 2024. "Why Is Productivity Slowing Down?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(1), pages 196-268, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D; barriers to entry; innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:red:sed006:121. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.