研发投入跳跃、吸收能力与企业动态绩效

R&D spending leap, absorptive capacity and firm dynamic performance

长期经济衰退下不同类型的研发投资转换、特别是利用式向探索式研发转换,被认为是持续创新、革命性技术产生的重要环节。首先,借助Aghion融资约束对周期性研发活动影响的基本思想,阐述了研发投入跳跃、吸收能力对企业绩效的影响机理;其次,用2010-2017年间我国深市A股及创业板345个企业与美国纳斯达克市场247企业的样本数据对中美两国企业研发投入跳跃的特征进行比较,发现中国的研发投入跳跃较为保守且主要由大企业完成;最后,实证检验发现:研发投入跳跃对中国企业的经营绩效有促进作用,对价值绩效具有负向影响,而美国企业与之相反;吸收能力在研发投入跳跃对经营绩效的影响中两国均表现为负向调节;但对美国企业价值绩效的调节显著为正,对中国的价值绩效调节不显著,这反映了两国企业在开拓前瞻性技术上的差异。

Under the long-term economic recession, the transition of different types of R&D investment, especially from exploitative R&D to explorative R&D, is considered to be an important link for continuous innovation and revolutionary technology. This article: First, with Aghion’s basic idea of the impact of financing constraints on cyclical R&D investment activities, we explained the mechanism of the impact on R&D spending leap, absorptive capability and firm dynamic performance. Second, with the data of 345 companies in China ’s Shenzhen A-share and growth enterprise market and 247 companies in the U.S. Nasdaq from 2010 to 2017, we compared the different characteristics of R & D spending leap between China and the US and found that firms in China were more cautious. Finally, the impact of R&D spending leap on corporate performance was tested by empirical analysis. The empirical results showed that(1)R&D spending leap has promoted the operating performance of Chinese enterprises significantly at a level of 5%, but has a negative impact on value performance significantly at a level of 1%;For American companies R&D spending leap has a negative impact on operating performance significantly at a level of 1%, while has positive impact on value performance significantly at a level of 1%.(2)The absorptive capacity of both Chinese and American companies was negatively adjusted in the impact of R&D spending leap on operating performance, which reflected the difficulty of current technology leaps;The adjustment of absorptive capacity to the value performance of American companies was significantly positive while for Chinese companies was not significant, which suggested the differences in the development of forward-looking technologies of the two countries.