研发投入强度对企业绩效影响的门槛效应研究被引量：177

Threshold effects of R&D intensity on firm performance

导出

摘要基于我国工业企业数据，使用门槛面板数据模型，研究了研发投入强度对企业绩效的非线性影响：研发投入强度只有达到第一门槛值时，才能对企业绩效产生显著促进作用；而超过第二门槛值时，对企业绩效的作用变得不明显；研发投入强度对企业绩效影响的门槛效应存在行业差异。最佳的研发投入强度区间是：对于高技术行业而言，研发强度处于1．1％～4．13％时，研发对资产收益率的促进作用最明显；研发强度处于1．17％～4．16％时，研发对全要素生产率的促进作用最明显；而对于低技术行业，研发强度在0．74％～3．73％时，研发对资产收益率的促进作用最强；而在0．93％～3．8％时，对全要素生产率的促进作用最强。我国有研发活动的企业中，超过51．46％的企业，研发投入强度仍低于第一门槛值。因此，引导企业研发创新，提高研发投入强度仍将是我国科技政策的重要目标。 Based on threshold panel data model with industrial enterprises in China, this paper analyzed the non - linear effects of R＆D intensity on firm performance. R＆D promotes firm performance only if R＆D intensity exceeds the first threshold. While R＆D in- tensity exceeds the second threshold, increasing R＆D can hardly bring performance growth. The threshold effects of R＆D intensity on firm performance vary across industries. The optimum interval of R＆D intensity ranges from 1. 1% to 4. 13% to effectively promote TFP, and 1.17% -4.16% to promote ROA in high -tech industries. This optimum interval for low -tech industries ranges from 0. 74% to 3.73% to effectively promote TFP, and O. 93% - 3.8% to promote ROA. R＆D intensity for 51.46% enterprises involved in R＆D activity is still smaller than the first threshold. Therefore, encouraging R＆D investment and promoting R＆D intensity should still be an important goal for S＆T policy in China.

作者戴小勇成力为

机构地区大连理工大学管理与经济学部

出处《科学学研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第11期1708-1716,1735,共10页 Studies in Science of Science

基金教育部人文社会科学基金项目(11YJA790016) 国家自然科学基金重点项目(71033002) 国家自然科学基金资助项目(71172136)

关键词研发投资企业绩效门槛效应 R＆D firm performance threshold effects

分类号 F273.3 [经济管理—企业管理]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献26

1Wakelin K. Productivity growth and R&D expenditure in UK manufacturing firms [ J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(7) : 1079 - 1090.
2Rouvinen P. R&D productivity dynamics: causality, lags, and ' dry holes' , Journal of Applied Economics, 2002,(5), 123 - 56.
3Bae S C, Kim D. The effect of R&D investment on mar- ket value of firm: evidence from the U. S. , Germany, and Japan, Multinational Business Review, 2003, (11), 51 - 75.
4Connolly R A, Hirschey M. Firm size and the effect of R&D on Tobin' s q, R&D Management, 2005, (35) , 217 - 23.
5O'Mahony M, Vecchi M. R&D, knowledge spillovers and company productivity performance [ J ]. Research Policy, 2009, 38(1): 35-44.
6Falk M. Quantile estimates of the impact of R&D inten- sity on firm performance [ J]. Small Business Econom- ics, 2012, 39(1): 19-37.
7Sharma C. R&D and firm performance: evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry [ J ]. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 2012, 17(2) : 332 -42.
8Gou B, Wang Q z, Shou Y. Firm size, R&D, and per- formance: an empirical analysis on software industry in China[ A]. International Engineering Management Con- ference[ C]. 2004, IEEE, Singapore.
9Lin B, Lee Y, Hung S. R&D intensity and commercial- ization orientation effects on financial performance, Jour- nal of Business Research, 2006, (59) , 679 - 85.
10Tsai K H, Wang J C. Does R&D performance decline with firm size? A re - examination in terms of elasticity [ J ]. Research Policy, 2005, 34 (6) : 966 - 76.