Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 595

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dynamic count data models of technological innovation

Griffith, Rachel, Van Reenen, John, Blundell, Richard·1994·Working Paper Series

Abstract

This paper examines the application of count data models to firm level panel data on technological innovations. The model we propose exhibits dynamic feedback and unobserved heterogeneity. We develop a fixed effects estimator that generalises the standard Poisson and negative binomial models allowing for dynamic feedback through both the firm's of knowledge and its product market power. By using the long pre-sample history of innovation information this entry stock estimator is shown to control for correlated fixed effects and is compared with an alternative nonlinear GMM estimator. We find evidence of history dependence in innovation activity although variables reflecting the company's economic environment are also found to play a major role. Technological innovation is an inherently dynamic and nonlinear process. Empirical models seeking to track its progress should share these features. Count data models, where the variable of interest is a non-negative integer, are commonly used to analyse innovation headcounts. However, they are not typically formulated to deal with the dynamic feedback that is suggested by theory. In this paper we examine alternative approaches to modelling innovation counts when there are important dynamics and unobservable heterogeneity. We model a count of the number of innovations commercialised by a firm in a year as a function of a firm's market power and its tangible and knowledge capital stock. There is clearly going to be some feedback mechanism between market power and innovation - a successful innovation is likely to lead to an increase in a firm's market share. In addition, any representative sample of companies is likely to display a wide range of innovative activity. The majority of companies make few innovations while a small group are involved in a high level of activity. This difference is unlikely to be solely attributable to observable differences across companies. Unobservable permanent heterogeneity is, therefore, an important feature of any empirical model of innovation activity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1920/wp.ifs.1994.9410

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Griffith, R., Van Reenen, J., & Blundell, R.
Venue
Working Paper Series
Published
1994-10-26
ISSN
  • 1369-4685 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-0415
OpenAlex
W1995773633
Cited by
595
References
0
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.