IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/202323.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Out of Equilibrium and Intangible Assets

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The new evidence provided by the codification of intangible assets in national accounts and firm statistics offers the opportunity to test the Schumpeterian creative response hypothesis that: i) the generation and exploitation of knowledge are characterized by high levels of risk; ii) firms in equilibrium are reluctant to undertake risky activities; iii) the farther away from equilibrium conditions, the stronger the commitment to innovation efforts by firms iv) that are heterogeneous in their reactivity and entrepreneurship levels. Empirical evidence for US listed companies over the period 1977-2016 confirms a U-shaped relationship between out-of-equilibrium performance and growth in the intensity of intangible capital. Entrepreneurship levels, measured by the extent of the firm creative response, differs with firm size, age, and industry. Precisely, we estimate a deeper U- shaped relationship between performance and growth in intangibles intensity for small and young firms and, on average, for firms in high-tech industries. Our results are robust to different econometric tests performed on alternative samples, and we also propose an original instrumental variable strategy that further strengthens the validity of our results. We conclude that the firm creative response is an out-of-equilibrium phenomenon, stronger in the case of disappointing performances and sharper for small, young, and high-tech firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonelli, Cristiano & Orsatti, Gianluca & Pialli, Guido, 2023. "Out of Equilibrium and Intangible Assets," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 202323, University of Turin.
  • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:202323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2023dip/wp_23_2023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Hussinger, Katrin & Pacher, Sebastian, 2019. "Information ambiguity, patents and the market value of innovative assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 665-675.
    3. Mariela Dal Borgo & Peter Goodridge & Jonathan Haskel & Annarosa Pesole, 2013. "Productivity and Growth in UK Industries: An Intangible Investment Approach," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 75(6), pages 806-834, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Borisova, Ginka & Brown, James R., 2013. "R&D sensitivity to asset sale proceeds: New evidence on financing constraints and intangible investment," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 159-173.
    6. Coad, Alex & Segarra, Agustí & Teruel, Mercedes, 2016. "Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 387-400.
    7. Foster, John & Metcalfe, J. Stan, 2012. "Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 420-432.
    8. David Autor & David Dorn & Gordon Hanson, 2019. "When Work Disappears: Manufacturing Decline and the Falling Marriage Market Value of Young Men," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 161-178, September.
    9. Montserrat Manzaneque & Alfonso A. Rojo-Ramírez & Julio Diéguez-Soto & Maria J. Martínez-Romero, 2020. "How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 209-233, January.
    10. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    11. Frederique Savignac, 2008. "Impact Of Financial Constraints On Innovation: What Can Be Learned From A Direct Measure?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 553-569.
    12. David Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson & Gary Pisano & Pian Shu, 2020. "Foreign Competition and Domestic Innovation: Evidence from US Patents," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 357-374, September.
    13. Zoltán J. Ács & Pontus Braunerhjelm & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 7, pages 129-144, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Carol Corrado & Charles Hulten & Daniel Sichel, 2009. "Intangible Capital And U.S. Economic Growth," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(3), pages 661-685, September.
    15. 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.
    16. James B. Ang & Jakob B. Madsen, 2011. "Can Second-Generation Endogenous Growth Models Explain the Productivity Trends and Knowledge Production in the Asian Miracle Economies?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1360-1373, November.
    17. Dirk Czarnitzki & Andrew A. Toole, 2011. "Patent Protection, Market Uncertainty, and R&D Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 147-159, February.
    18. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The Geography of Trade and Technology Shocks in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 220-225, May.
    19. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Mark Freel, 2007. "Are Small Innovators Credit Rationed?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 23-35, January.
    21. Thum-Thysen, Anna & Voigt, Peter & Bilbao-Osorio, Beñat & Maier, Christoph & Ognyanova, Diana, 2019. "Investment dynamics in Europe: Distinct drivers and barriers for investing in intangible versus tangible assets?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 77-88.
    22. Uwe Cantner, 2017. "Foundations of Economic Change: An Extended Schumpeterian Approach," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 9-49, Springer.
    23. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D: The Depreciation Problem," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 341-381, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Massenot, Baptiste & Pettinicchi, Yuri, 2018. "Can firms see into the future? Survey evidence from Germany," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 66-79.
    25. Antonelli, Cristiano, 1989. "A failure-inducement model of research and development expenditure : Italian evidence from the early 1980s," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 159-180, October.
    26. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 149-159, November.
    27. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    28. Nicolas Crouzet & Janice C. Eberly, 2019. "Understanding Weak Capital Investment: the Role of Market Concentration and Intangibles," NBER Working Papers 25869, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Hans Loof & Almas Heshmati, 2006. "On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 317-344.
    30. Hannu Piekkola, 2018. "Broad-based intangibles as generators of growth in Europe," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 377-400, May.
    31. Sandro Montresor & Antonio Vezzani, 2016. "Intangible investments and innovation propensity: Evidence from the Innobarometer 2013," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 331-352, May.
    32. Michele Kremen Bolton, 1993. "Organizational Innovation and Substandard Performance: When is Necessity the Mother of Innovation?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 57-75, February.
    33. Carol Corrado & John Haltiwanger & Daniel Sichel, 2005. "Introduction to "Measuring Capital in the New Economy"," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 1-10, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    34. Emily Oster, 2019. "Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 187-204, April.
    35. Kurz, Heinz D., 2008. "Innovations and profits: Schumpeter and the classical heritage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 263-278, July.
    36. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2015. "Untangling Trade and Technology: Evidence from Local Labour Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(584), pages 621-646, May.
    37. Sara Amoroso & Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Antonio Vezzani, 2017. "R&D profitability: the role of risk and Knightian uncertainty," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 331-343, February.
    38. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "Endogenous innovation: the creative response," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(8), pages 689-718, November.
    39. Grossman, Gene M. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1991. "Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2-3), pages 517-526, April.
    40. Maria Elena Bontempi & Jacques Mairesse, 2015. "Intangible capital and productivity at the firm level: a panel data assessment," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1-2), pages 22-51, March.
    41. Johan Hombert & Adrien Matray, 2018. "Can Innovation Help U.S. Manufacturing Firms Escape Import Competition from China?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(5), pages 2003-2039, October.
    42. Paul Geroski & Steve Machin & John Van Reenen, 1993. "The Profitability of Innovating Firms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 198-211, Summer.
    43. Audretsch, David B, 1998. "Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activity," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 18-29, Summer.
    44. 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.
    45. Lennart Erixon, 2016. "Is firm renewal stimulated by negative shocks? The status of negative driving forces in Schumpeterian and Darwinian economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 40(1), pages 93-121.
    46. Sandro Montresor & Antonio Vezzani, 2022. "Financial constraints to investing in intangibles: Do innovative and non-innovative firms differ?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-32, February.
    47. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:14 is not listed on IDEAS
    48. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    49. Carol Corrado & John Haltiwanger & Daniel Sichel, 2005. "Measuring Capital in the New Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number corr05-1.
    50. Jeremiah Green & Henock Louis & Jalal Sani, 2022. "Intangible Investments, Scaling, and the Trend in the Accrual–Cash Flow Association," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 1551-1582, September.
    51. Eric Zwick & James Mahon, 2017. "Tax Policy and Heterogeneous Investment Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(1), pages 217-248, January.
    52. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2018. "Econometric evidence on the depreciation of innovations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 625-642.
    53. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "Theoretical Problems of Economic Growth," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(S1), pages 1-9, January.
    54. Ryan Decker & John Haltiwanger & Ron Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2014. "The Role of Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(3), pages 3-24, Summer.
    55. Panagiotidis, Theodore & Printzis, Panagiotis, 2021. "Investment and uncertainty: Are large firms different from small ones?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 302-317.
    56. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    57. Anne Marie Knott & Carl Vieregger, 2020. "Reconciling the Firm Size and Innovation Puzzle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 477-488, March.
    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. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluca Orsatti & Guido Pialli, 2023. "The effects of the limited exhaustibility of knowledge on firm size and the direction of technological change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1359-1385, August.
    2. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluca Orsatti & Guido Pialli, 2023. "The knowledge-intensive direction of technological change," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2022. "Knowledge properties and the creative response in the global economy: European evidence for the years 1990–2016," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 459-475, April.
    4. Schubert, Torben & Jäger, Angela & Türkeli, Serdar & Visentin, Fabiana, 2020. "Addressing the productivity paradox with big data: A literature review and adaptation of the CDM econometric model," MERIT Working Papers 2020-050, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2023. "The foundations of Schumpeterian dynamics: The European evidence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 65-96, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2021. "The Schumpeterian creative response: export and innovation: evidence for OECD countries 1995–2015," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 803-821, October.
    9. Nathan Chappell & Adam Jaffe, 2018. "Intangible Investment and Firm Performance," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(4), pages 509-559, June.
    10. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio, 2013. "Knowledge spillover effects at the sub-regional level. Theory and estimation," DIAG Technical Reports 2013-13, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    12. Cristiano Antonelli & Federico Barbiellini Amidei, 2011. "The Dynamics of Knowledge Externalities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13292.
    13. Nicholas Oulton, 2016. "The Mystery of TFP," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 31, pages 68-87, Fall.
    14. Dan Andrews & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Capital, Innovation and Resource Allocation," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1046, OECD Publishing.
    15. Andrin Spescha & Martin Woerter, 2021. "Research and development as an initiator of fixed capital investment," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 117-145, January.
    16. Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Truger, Achim & Wieland, Volker, 2019. "Den Strukturwandel meistern. Jahresgutachten 2019/20 [Dealing with Structural Change. Annual Report 2019/20]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201920.
    17. Nonnis, Alberto & Bounfour, Ahmed & Kim, Keungoui, 2023. "Knowledge spillovers and intangible complementarities: Empirical case of European countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    18. Roth, Felix, 2019. "Intangible Capital and Labour Productivity Growth: A Review of the Literature," Hamburg Discussion Papers in International Economics 4, University of Hamburg, Department of Economics.
    19. Alfredo Monte & Sara Moccia & Luca Pennacchio, 2022. "Regional entrepreneurship and innovation: historical roots and the impact on the growth of regions," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 451-473, January.
    20. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    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:uto:dipeco:202323. 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: Piero Cavaleri or Marina Grazioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.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.