The Structure of Firm R&D and the Factor Intensity of Production
October 1997
Working Paper Number:
CES-97-15
Abstract
This paper studies the influence of the structure of firm R&D, industry R&D spillovers, and plant level physical capital on the factor intensity of production. By the structure of firm R&D we mean its distribution across states and products. By factor intensity we mean the cost shares of variable factors, which in this paper are blue collar labor, white collar labor, and materials. We characterize the effect of the structure of firm R&D on factor intensity using a Translog cost function with quasi-fixed factors. This cost function gives rise to a system of variable cost shares that depends on factor prices, firm and industry R&D, and physical capital.
Document Tags and Keywords
Keywords
Keywords are automatically generated using KeyBERT, a powerful and innovative
keyword extraction tool that utilizes BERT embeddings to ensure high-quality and contextually relevant
keywords.
By analyzing the content of working papers, KeyBERT identifies terms and phrases that capture the essence of the
text, highlighting the most significant topics and trends. This approach not only enhances searchability but
provides connections that go beyond potentially domain-specific author-defined keywords.
:
production,
economist,
econometric,
endogeneity,
manufacturing,
enterprise,
growth,
technological,
manufacturer,
employee,
employ,
firms plants,
produce,
factor productivity,
factory,
specialization,
spillover,
bias,
plant productivity,
plants industry,
industry variation
Tags
Tags are automatically generated using a pretrained language model from spaCy, which excels at
several tasks, including entity tagging.
The model is able to label words and phrases by part-of-speech,
including "organizations." By filtering for frequent words and phrases labeled as "organizations", papers are
identified to contain references to specific institutions, datasets, and other organizations.
:
Census of Manufactures,
Annual Survey of Manufactures,
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Longitudinal Research Database,
National Bureau of Economic Research,
Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Schools Under Registration Review,
Census of Manufacturing Firms
Similar Working Papers
Similarity between working papers are determined by an unsupervised neural
network model
know as Doc2Vec.
Doc2Vec is a model that represents entire documents as fixed-length vectors, allowing for the
capture of semantic meaning in a way that relates to the context of words within the document. The model learns to
associate a unique vector with each document while simultaneously learning word vectors, enabling tasks such as
document classification, clustering, and similarity detection by preserving the order and structure of words. The
document vectors are compared using cosine similarity/distance to determine the most similar working papers.
Papers identified with 🔥 are in the top 20% of similarity.
The 10 most similar working papers to the working paper 'The Structure of Firm R&D and the Factor Intensity of Production' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperThe Span of the Effect of R&D in the Firm and Industry🔥
May 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-07
Previous studies have found that the firm's own research and spillovers of research by related firms increase firm productivity. In contrast, in this paper we explore the impact of firm R&D on the productivity of its individual plants. We carry out this investigation of within firm R&D effects using a unique set of Census data. The data, which are from the chemicals industry, are a match of plant level productivity and other characteristics with firm level data on R&D of the parent company, cross-classified by location and applied product field. We explore three aspects of the span of effect of the firm's R&D: (i), the degree to which its R&D is "public" across plants; (ii), the extent of its localization in geographic space, and (iii), the breadth of its relevance outside the applied product area in which it is classified. We find that (i), firm R&D acts more like a private input which is strongly amortized by the number of plants in the firm; (ii), firm R&D is geographically localized, and exerts greater influence on productivity when it is conducted nearer to the plant; and (iii), firm R&D in a given applied product area is of limited relevance to plants producing outside that product area. Moreover, we find that while geographic localization remains significant, it diminishes over time. This trend is consistent with the effect of improved telecommunications on increased information flows within organizations. Finally, we consider spillovers of R&D from the rest of industry, finding that the marginal product of industry R&D on plant productivity, though positive and significant, is far smaller than the marginal product of parent firm's R&D.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAcademic Science, Industrial R&D, and the Growth of Inputs
January 1993
Working Paper Number:
CES-93-01
This paper is a theoretical and empirical investigation of the connection between science, R&D, and the growth of capital. Studies of high technology industries and recent labor studies agree in assigning a large role to science and technology in the growth of human and physical capital, although direct tests of these relationships have not been carried out. This paper builds on the search approach to R&D of Evenson and Kislev (1976) to unravel the complex interactions between science, R&D, and factor markets suggested by these studies. In our theory lagged science increases the returns to R&D, so that scientific advance later feeds into growth of R&D. In turn, product quality improvements and price declines lead to the growth of industry by shifting out new product demand, perhaps at the expense of traditional industries. All this tends to be in favor of the human and physical capital used intensively by high technology industries. This is the source of the factor bias which is implicit in the growth of capital per head. Our empirical work overwhelmingly supports the contention that growth of labor skills and physical capital are linked to science and R&D. It also supports the strong sequencing of events that is a crucial feature of our model, first from science to R&D, and later to output and factor markets.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperScience, R&D, And Invention Potential Recharge: U.S. Evidence
January 1993
Working Paper Number:
CES-93-02
The influence of academic science on industrial R&D seems to have increased in recent years compared with the pre-World War II period. This paper outlines an approach to tracing this influence using a panel of 14 R&D performing industries from 1961-1986. The results indicate an elasticity between real R&D and indicators of stocks of academic science of about 0.6. This elasticity is significant controlling for industry effects. However, the elasticity declines from its level during the 1961-1973 subperiod, when it was 2.2, to 0.5 during the 1974-1986 subperiod. Reasons for the decline include exogenous and endogenous exhaustion of invention potential, and declining incentives to do R&D stemming from a weakening of intellectual property rights. The growth of R&D since the mid-1980s suggests a restoration of R&D incentives in still more recent times.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperLearning by Doing and Plant Characteristics
August 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-05
Learning by doing, especially spillover learning, has received much attention lately in models of industry evolution and economic growth. The predictions of these models depend on the distribution of learning abilities and knowledge flows across firms and countries. However, the empirical literature provides little guidance on these issues. In this paper, I use plant level data on a sample of entrants in SIC 38, Instruments, to examine the characteristics associated with both proprietary and spillover learning by doing. The plant level data permit tests for the relative importance of within and between firm spillovers. I include both formal knowledge, obtained through R&D expenditures, and informal knowledge, obtained through learning by doing, in a production function framework. I allow the speed of learning to vary across plants according to characteristics such as R&D intensity, wages, and the skill mix. The results suggest that (a) Ainformal@ knowledge, accumulated through production experience at the plant, is a much more important source of productivity growth for these plants than is Aformal@ knowledge gained via research and development expenditures, (b) interfirm spillovers are stronger than intrafirm spillovers, (c) the slope of the own learning curve is positively related to worker quality, (d) the slope of the spillover learning curve is positively related to the skill mix at plants, (e) neither own nor spillover learning curve slopes are related to R&D intensities. These results imply that learning by doing may be, to some extent, an endogenous phenomenon at these plants. Thus, models of industry evolution that incorporate learning by doing may need to be revised. The results are also broadly consistent with the recent growth models.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Demand for Human Capital: A Microeconomic Approach
December 2001
Working Paper Number:
CES-01-16
We propose a model for explaining the demand for human capital based on a CES production function with human capital as an explicit argument in the function. The resulting factor demand model is tested with data on roughly 6,000 plants from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database. The results show strong complementarity between physical and human capital. Moreover, the complementarity is greater in high than in low technology industries. The results also show that physical capital of more recent vintage is associated with a higher demand for human capital. While the age of a plant as a reflection of learning-by-doing is positively related to the accumulation of human capital, this relation is more pronounced in low technology industries.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperOutsourced R&D and GDP Growth
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-19
Endogenous growth theory holds that growth should increase with R&D. However coarse comparison between R&D and US GDP growth over the past forty years indicates that inflation scientific labor increased 2.5 times, while GDP growth was at best stagnant. The leading explanation for the disconnect between theory and the empirical record is that R&D has gotten harder. I develop and test an alternative view that firms have become worse at it. I find no evidence R&D has gotten harder. Instead I find firms' R&D productivity declined 65%, and that the main culprit in the decline is outsourced R&D, which is unproductive for the funding firm. This offers hope firms' R&D productivity and economic growth may be fairly easily restored by bringing outsourced R&D back in-house.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperReconciling the Firm Size and Innovation Puzzle
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-20RR
There is a prevailing view in both the academic literature and the popular press that firms need to behave more entrepreneurially. This view is reinforced by a stylized fact in the innovation literature that R&D productivity decreases with size. However, there is a second stylized fact in the innovation literature that R&D investment increases with size. Taken together, these stylized facts create a puzzle of seemingly irrational behavior by large firms--they are increasing spending despite decreasing returns. This paper is an effort to resolve that puzzle. We propose and test two alternative resolutions: 1) that it arises from mismeasurement of R&D productivity, and 2) that firm size endogenously drives R&D strategy, and that the returns to R&D strategies depend on scale. We are able to resolve the puzzle under the first tack--using a recent measure of R&D productivity, RQ, we find that both R&D spending and R&D productivity increase with scale. We had less success with the second tack--while firm size affects R&D strategy in the manners expected by theory, there is no strategy whose returns decrease in scale. Taken together, our results are consistent with the Schumpeter view that large firms are the major engine of growth, they both spend more in aggregate than small firms, and are more productive with that spending. Moreover the prescription that firms should behave more entrepreneurially, should be treated with caution--one small firm strategy has lower returns to scale than its large firm counterpart.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperTechnological Change and Economies of Scale in U.S. Poultry Slaughter
April 2000
Working Paper Number:
CES-00-05
This paper uses a unique data set provided by the Census Bureau to empirically examine technological change and economies of scale in the chicken and turkey slaughter industries. Results reveal substantial scale economies that show no evidence of diminishing with plant size and that are much greater than those realized in cattle and hog slaughter. Additionally, it is shown that controlling for plant product mix is critical to cost estimation and animal inputs are much more elastic to prices than in either cattle or hogs. Results suggest that consolidation is likely to continue, particularly if demand growth diminishes.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEnergy Intensity, Electricity Consumption, and Advanced Manufacturing Technology Usage
July 1993
Working Paper Number:
CES-93-09
This paper reports on the relationship between the usage of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) and energy consumption patterns in manufacturing plants. Using data from the Survey of Manufacturing Technology and the 1987 Census of Manufactures, we model the energy intensity and the electricity intensity of plants as functions of AMT usage and plant age. The main findings are that plants which utilize AMTs are less energy intensive than plants not using AMTs but consume proportionately more electricity as a fuel source. Additionally, older plants are generally more energy intensive and rely on fossil fuels to a greater extent than younger plants.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperA Guide To R&D Data At The Center For Economic Studies U.S. Bureau Of THe Census
August 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-09
The National Science Foundation R&D Survey is an annual survey of firms' research and development expenditures. The survey covers 3000 firms reporting positive R&D. This paper provides a description of the R&D data available at the Center for Economic Studies (CES). The most basic data series available contains the original survey R&D data. It covers the years 1972-92. The remaining two series, although derived from the original files, specialize in particular items. The Mandatory Series contains required survey items for the years 1973-88. Items reported at firms' discretion are in the Voluntary Series, which covers the years 1974-89. Both of the derived series incorporate flags that track quality of the data. Both also include corrections to the data based on original hard copy survey evidence stored at CES. In addition to describing each dataset, we offer suggestions to researchers wishing to use the R&D data in exploring various economic issues. We report selected response rates, discuss the survey design, and provide hints on how to use the data.View Full Paper PDF
