We focus on the evolution and behavior of firms that invest in research and development (R&D). We build upon the cross-sectional analysis in Foster and Grim (2010) that identified the characteristics of top R&D spending firms and follow up by charting the behavior of these firms over time. Our focus is dynamic in nature as we merge micro-level cross-sectional data from the Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) and the Business Research & Development and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) with the Longitudinal Business Database (LBD). The result is a panel firm-level data set from 1992 to 2011 that tracks firms' performances as they enter and exit the R&D surveys. Using R&D expenditures to proxy R&D performance, we find the top R&D performing firms in the U.S. across all years to be large, old, multinational enterprises. However, we also find that the composition of R&D performing firms is gradually shifting more towards smaller domestic firms with expenditures being less sensitive to scale effects. We find a high degree of persistence for these firms over time. We chart the history of R&D performing firms and compare them to all firms in the economy and find substantial differences in terms of age, size, firm structure and international activity; these differences persist when looking at future firm outcomes.
-
Characteristics of the Top R&D Performing Firms in the U.S.: Evidence from the Survey of Industrial R&D
September 2010
Working Paper Number:
CES-10-33
Innovation drives economic growth and productivity growth, and as such, indicators of innovative activity such as research and development (R&D) expenditures are of paramount importance. We combine Census confidential microdata from two sources in order to examine the characteristics of the top R&D performing firms in the U.S. economy. We use the Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) to identify the top 200 R&D performing firms in 2003 and, to the extent possible, to trace the evolution of these firms from 1957 to 2007. The Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) further extends our knowledge about these firms and enables us to make comparisons to the U.S. economy. By linking the SIRD and the LBD we are able to create a detailed portrait of the evolution of the top R&D performing firms in the U.S.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
The Role of Industry Classification in the Estimation of Research and Development Expenditures
November 2014
Working Paper Number:
CES-14-45
This paper uses data from the National Science Foundation's surveys on business research and development (R&D) expenditures that have been linked with data from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Business Database to produce consistent NAICS-based R&D time-series data based on the main product produced by the firm for 1976 to 2008.The results show that R&D spending has shifted away from domestic manufacturing industries in recent years. This is due in part to a shift in U.S. payrolls away from manufacturing establishments for R&D-performing firms.These findings support the notion of an increasingly fragmented production system for R&D-intensive manufacturing firms, whereby U.S. firms control output and provide intellectual property inputs in the form of R&D, but production takes place outside of the firms' U.S. establishments.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
R&D or R vs. D?
Firm Innovation Strategy and Equity Ownership
April 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-14
We analyze a unique dataset that separately reports research and development expenditures
for a large panel of public and private firms. Definitions of 'research' and 'development' in this dataset, respectively, correspond to definitions of knowledge 'exploration' and 'exploitation' in the innovation theory literature. We can thus test theories of how equity ownership status relates to innovation strategy. We find that public firms have greater research intensity than private firms, inconsistent with theories asserting private ownership is more conducive to exploration. We also find public firms invest more intensely in innovation of all sorts. These results suggest relaxed financing constraints enjoyed by public firms, as well as their diversified shareholder bases, make them more conducive to investing in all types of innovation. Reconciling several seemingly conflicting results in prior research, we find private-equity-owned firms, though not less innovative overall than other private firms, skew their innovation strategies toward development and away from research.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Innovation and Appropriability: Revisiting the Role of Intellectual Property
March 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-09
It is more than 25 years since the authors of the Yale and Carnegie surveys studied how firms seek to protect the rents from innovation. In this paper, we revisit that question using a nationally representative sample of firms over the period 2008-2015, with the goal of updating and extending a set of stylized facts that has been influential for our understanding of the economics of innovation. There are five main findings. First, while patenting firms are relatively uncommon in the economy, they account for an overwhelming share of R&D spending. Second, utility patents are considered less important than other forms of IP protection, like trade secrets, trademarks, and copyrights. Third, industry differences explain a great deal of the level of firms' engagement with IP, with high-tech firms on average being more active on all forms of IP. Fourth, we do not find any significant difference in the use of IP strategies across firms at different points of their life cycle. Lastly, unlike age, firms of different size appear to manage IP significantly differently. On average, larger firms tend to engage much more extensively in the protection of IP, and this pattern cannot be easily explained by differences in the type of R&D or innovation produced by a firm. We also discuss the implications of these findings for innovation research and policy.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Allocation of Company Research and Development Expenditures to Industries Using a Tobit Model
November 2015
Working Paper Number:
CES-15-42
This paper uses Census microdata and a regression-based approach to assign multi-division firms' pre-2008 Research and Development (R&D) expenditures to more than one industry. Since multi-division firms conduct R&D in more than one industry, assigning R&D to corresponding industries provides a more accurate representation of where R&D actually takes place and provides a consistent time-series with the National Science Foundation R&D by line of business information. Firm R&D is allocated to industries on the basis of observed industry payroll, as befits the historic importance of payroll in Census assignments of firms to industry. The results demonstrate that the method of assigning R&D to industries on the basis of payroll works well in earlier years, but becomes less effective over time as firms outsource their manufacturing function.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
A 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
-
The Rising Returns to R&D: Ideas Are Not Getting Harder to Find
May 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-29
R&D investment has grown robustly, yet aggregate productivity growth has stagnated. Is this because 'ideas are getting harder to find'? This paper uses micro-data from the US Census Bureau to explore the relationship between R&D and productivity in the manufacturing sector from 1976 to 2018. We find that both the elasticity of output (TFP) with respect to R&D and the marginal returns to R&D have risen sharply. Exploring factors affecting returns, we conclude that R&D obsolescence rates must have risen. Using a novel estimation approach, we find consistent evidence of sharply rising technological rivalry. These findings suggest that R&D has become more effective at finding productivity-enhancing ideas but these ideas may also render rivals' technologies obsolete, making innovations more transient.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
R&D Reactions To High-Technology Import Competition
March 1991
Working Paper Number:
CES-91-02
For a seventeen-year panel covering 308 U.S. manufacturing corporations, we analyze firms' R&D spending reactions to changes in high-technology imports. On average, companies reduced their R&D/sales ratios in the short run as imports rose. Individual company reactions were heterogeneous, especially for multinational firms. Short-run reactions were more aggressive (i.e., tending toward R&D/sales ratio increases), the more concentrated the markets were in which the companies operated, the larger the company was, and the more diversified the firm's sales mix was. Reactions were less aggressive when special trade barriers had been erected or patent protection was strong in the impacted industries. Companies with a top executive officer educated in science or engineering were more likely to increase R&D/sales ratios in response to an import shock, all else equal. Over the full 17-year sample period, reactions may have shifted toward greater average aggressiveness.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
IMPORTING, EXPORTING AND FIRM-LEVEL EMPLOYMENT VOLATILITY
June 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-31
In this paper, we use detailed trade and transactions data for the U.S. manufacturing sector to empirically analyze the direction and magnitude of the association between firm-level exposure to trade and the volatility of employment growth. We find that, relative to purely domestic firms, firms that only export and firms that both export and import are less volatile, whereas firms that only import are more volatile. The positive relationship between importing and volatility is driven mainly by firms that switch in and out of importing. We also document a significant degree of heterogeneity across trading firms in terms of the duration of time and intensity with which firms trade, the number and type of products they trade and the number and characteristics of their trading partners. We find these factors to play an important role in explaining the differential impact of trading on employment volatility experienced by these firms.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Decomposing Aggregate Trade Flows: New Evidence from U.S. Traders
September 2012
Working Paper Number:
CES-12-17
Using firm-level data on export transactions, we uncover a rich set of results about the extensive margins of exporting and exporter responses during periods of global downturns. We perform our analysis with respect to firm size, age, ownership status, and sector to emphasize the role of firm heterogeneity. We uncover a larger role for firm entry and exit in changes in annual export flows of single-unit, smaller, and younger firms. Young, small firms perform best during both periods of crises as well as non-crises periods. We also decompose the margins of U.S. imports at the U.S. importer, foreign supplier, and U.S. importer-foreign supplier pair levels. While export flows are closely correlated with global business cycles, import flows more closely approximate U.S. economic cycles. Additionally, both pair and foreign supplier flows are far more volatile than U.S. import flows, that is, U.S. importer-foreign supplier matches experience more churning on average than do either U.S. importers or foreign suppliers.
View Full
Paper PDF