nep-sbm New Economics Papers
on Small Business Management
Issue of 2019‒07‒15
seventeen papers chosen by
João Carlos Correia Leitão
Universidade da Beira Interior

  1. Local Rates of New Firm Formation: An Empirical Exploration using Swedish Data By Andersson, Martin; Lavesson, Niclas; Partridge, Mark D.
  3. Business development and the growth of rural SMEs By David Freshwater; Enrique Garcilazo; Julia Latto; Julian Pace; Alvin Simms; Jamie Ward; Tim Wojan
  4. Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway By Haus-Reve, Silje; Fitjar, Rune Dahl; Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés
  5. The real effects of EU loan guarantee schemes for SMEs: A pan-European assessment By Brault, Julien; Signore, Simone
  6. The Role of Nonemployers in Business Dynamism and Aggregate Productivity By Pedro Bento; Diego Restuccia
  7. What Skills Lead to Entrepreneurial Success? Evidence from Non-Farm-Household Enterprises in Indonesia By Niken Kusumawardhani; Daniel Suryadarma; Luca Tiberti; Veto Tyas
  8. The Future of Cities: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward By ALBERTI Valentina; ALONSO RAPOSO Maria; ATTARDO Carmelo; AUTERI Davide; RIBEIRO BARRANCO Ricardo; BATISTA E SILVA Filipe; BENCZUR Peter; BERTOLDI Paolo; BONO Flavio; BUSSOLARI Ioris; LOURO CALDEIRA Sandra; CARLSSON Johan; CHRISTIDIS Panayotis; CHRISTODOULOU Aris; CIUFFO Biagio; CORRADO Sara; FIORETTI Carlotta; GALASSI Maria Cristina; GALBUSERA Luca; GAWLIK Bernd; GIUSTI Francesco; GOMEZ PRIETO Javier; GROSSO Monica; MARTINHO GUIMARAES PIRES PEREIRA Angela; JACOBS Christiaan; KAVALOV Boyan; KOMPIL Mert; KUCAS Andrius; KONA Albana; LAVALLE Carlo; LEIP Adrian; LYONS Lorcan; MANCA Anna Rita; MELCHIORRI Michele; MONFORTI-FERRARIO Fabio; MONTALTO Valentina; MORTARA Barbara; NATALE Fabrizio; PANELLA Francesco; PASI Giulio; PERPINA CASTILLO Carolina; PERTOLDI Martina; PISONI Enrico; ROQUE MENDES POLVORA Alexandre; RAINOLDI Alessandro; REMBGES Diana; RISSOLA Gabriel Julio; SALA Serenella; SCHADE Sven; SERRA Natalia; SPIRITO Laura; TSAKALIDIS Anastasios; SCHIAVINA Marcello; TINTORI Guido; VACCARI Lorenzino; VANDYCK Toon; VANHAM Davy; VAN HEERDEN Sjoerdje; VAN NOORDT Colin; VESPE Michele; VETTERS Nadja; VILAHUR CHIARAVIGLIO Nadia; VIZCAINO Maria Pilar; VON ESTORFF Ulrik; ZULIAN Grazia
  9. Firm size, productivity and pay in today's service economy By Giuseppe Berlingieri; Sara Calligaris; Chiara Criscuolo
  10. The Fountain of Knowledge: An Epistemological Perspective on the Growth of U.S. SBIR-Funded Firms By Audretsch, David; Link, Albert
  11. Impact of Credit and Training on Enterprise Performance: Evidence from Urban Ethiopia By Abdelkrim Araar; Yesuf Mohammednur Awel; Jonse Bane Boka; Hiywot Menker; Ajebush Shafi; Eleni Yitbarek; Mulatu Zerihun
  12. Integration and Competition for Innovations in Science-Based Industries By Tapas Kundu; Seongwuk Moon
  13. Buyers' Role in Innovation Procurement By De Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Decarolis, Francesco; Iossa, Elisabetta; Leonardo Giuffrida, Leonardo; Mollisi, Vincenzo; Raiteri, Emilio; Spagnolo, Giancarlo
  14. Serving Abroad: Export, M&A, and Greenfield Investment By Francesco Paolo Conteduca; Ekaterina Kazakova
  15. Antitrust and Innovation: Welcoming and Protecting Disruption By Giulio Federico; Fiona Scott Morton; Carl Shapiro
  16. Temporal Disaggregation of Business Dynamics: New Evidence for U.S. Economy By Lorenza Rossi; Emilio Zanetti Chini
  17. How do African SMEs respond to climate risks? Evidence from Kenya and Senegal By Crick, Florence; Eskander, Shaikh M.S.U.; Fankhauser, Samuel; Diop, Mamadou

  1. By: Andersson, Martin (Department of Economics, Blekinge Institute of Technology); Lavesson, Niclas (CIRCLE, Lund University); Partridge, Mark D. (Ohio State University)
    Abstract: We assess the empirical literature on the determinants of spatial variations in new-firm formation rates by undertaking a systematic empirical analysis of the relative roles of different demand- and supply-side factors. Using instrumental variables to address endogeneity, we find that local growth drives local entrepreneurship exclusively in services industries. Average establishment size has a robust negative influence on local new-firm formation rates, but its effect varies across industries. Local industry diversity is only positive for new-firm formation in high-tech and knowledge-intensive activities. There is also some evidence of that longer distances to urban centers is associated with higher new-firm formation rates. The only local factor with a consistent positive effect on new-firm formation across industries is local density of skilled workers. We conclude that industry structure, geography and agglomeration matter, but in the end, new firms are started by people, so it is unsurprising that the main factor driving local entrepreneurship is the characteristics of the local residents.
    Keywords: Entrepreneurship; New firm formation; Geography; Human capital; Agglomeration; Local growth; Startups
    JEL: L26 M13 R11 R30
    Date: 2019–06–27
  2. By: Quentin Plantec (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - PSL Research University - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI)); Benjamin Cabanes (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - PSL Research University - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Pascal Le Masson (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - PSL Research University - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Benoît Weil (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - PSL Research University - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
    Abstract: University-Industry (U-I) collaborative Ph.D. is one particular channel amongst a wide range of methods for firms to access academic knowledge. While often presented as a mean for firms to hire Ph.D. candidates or to address problem-solving issues, U-I collaborative Ph.D. could constitute an interesting proxy to deeper explore U-I collaborations goals and principles. We focus here on (1) what could be the different archetypes of U-I collaborative Ph.D. in terms of R&D strategies and collaboration forms? (2) In what extent firms and universities contribute to new knowledge co-development and unknown exploration through those collaborations? This exploratory study was based on an original date set of 90 collaboration agreements between laboratories and companies through the French "CIFRE" programme. First, we developed a coding scheme to classify each project between three collaboration forms (outsourcing of knowledge development / knowledge transfer & absorptive capacity / knowledge co-development) and three R&D strategies (process or product improvement / new competences enhancement / new innovation area exploration). Second, we computed descriptive statistical analyses to define four main archetypes of U-I collaborative Ph.D. As a result, the archetypes definition provided a more comprehensive vision of the literature on U-I collaborative Ph.D. projects that were appearing fragmented. We also highlighted that there was a high share of projects aiming at co-developing new knowledge for unknown exploration in our limited sample. We finally discussed (1) institutional factors that could favour this orientation and (2) possibilities to extend the scope of the study.
    Keywords: University -Industry ecosystems,R&D strategies,R&D collaborations,University - Industry PhD student,doctoral programmes
    Date: 2019–06–19
  3. By: David Freshwater; Enrique Garcilazo; Julia Latto; Julian Pace; Alvin Simms; Jamie Ward; Tim Wojan
    Abstract: The paper reviews the role of Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) as drivers of employment and economic growth in rural regions across a number of OECD geographies. It argues that SME creation is especially important for rural economic development and identified lessons for national level policy that can help strengthen the performance of SMEs and enhance the creation of new SMEs. This working paper focuses on four cases studies in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Scotland and the United States to derive general findings and recommendations.
    Keywords: benchmarking, economic development incentives/tools, geography, innovation, place, rural development, SMEs
    JEL: R51
    Date: 2019–07–12
  4. By: Haus-Reve, Silje; Fitjar, Rune Dahl; Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés
    Abstract: Product innovation is widely thought to benefit from collaboration with both scientific and supply-chain partners. The combination of exploration and exploitation capacity, and of scientific and experience-based knowledge, are expected to yield multiplicative effects. However, the assumption that scientific and supply-chain collaboration are complementary and reinforce firm-level innovation has not been examined empirically. This paper tests this assumption on an unbalanced panel sample of 8337 firm observations in Norway, covering the period 2006–2010. The results of the econometric analysis go against the orthodoxy. They show that Norwegian firms do not benefit from doing “more of all” on their road to innovation. While individually both scientific and supply-chain collaboration improve the chances of firm-level innovation, there is a significant negative interaction between them. This implies that scientific and supply-chain collaboration, in contrast to what has been often highlighted, are substitutes rather than complements. The results are robust to the introduction of different controls and hold for all tested innovation outcomes: product innovation, new-to-market product innovation, and share of turnover from new products.
    Keywords: innovation; firms; scientific and supply-chain collaboration; interaction; Norway
    JEL: O31 O32 O33
    Date: 2019–07–01
  5. By: Brault, Julien; Signore, Simone
    Abstract: This paper provides a pan-European assessment of EU credit guarantees to SMEs. Synthesizing past research, it investigates the firm-level economic impact of over 360,000 guaranteed loans under the EU MAP and CIP programmes from 2002 to 2016. These loans represented a total amount of EUR 22bn spanning 19 European countries - approximately 60% of all loan amounts guaranteed under these programmes. The paper reports estimates of the average treatment effect on the treated of these loans on the financial growth and survivability of firms, through a comparison against SMEs that were not supported by these programmes. Guaranteed loans are found to positively affect the growth of firms' assets (by 7 to more than 35%), the share of intangible assets (by one third of the initial share in Italy and the Nordic countries), sales (by 6 to 35%), employment (by 8 to 30%), and lower their probability to default (by 4 to 5%). The paper decomposes these effects by size, age, industry, and discusses implications.
    Keywords: EIF,credit guarantees,credit constraints,real effects,small and medium-sized enterprises
    JEL: G2 H25 O16
    Date: 2019
  6. By: Pedro Bento; Diego Restuccia
    Abstract: A well-documented observation of the U.S. economy in the last few decades has been the steady decline in the net entry rate of employer firms, a decline in business dynamism, suggesting a possible connection with the recent slowdown in aggregate productivity growth. We consider the role of nonemployers, businesses without paid employees, in business dynamism and aggregate productivity. Notwithstanding the decline in the growth of employer firms, we show that the total number of firms, which includes nonemployer businesses, has increased in the U.S. economy since the early 1980s. We interpret this trend, along with the evolution of the employment distribution across firms, through the lens of a standard theory of firm dynamics. The model implies that firm dynamics have contributed to an average annual growth rate of aggregate productivity of at least 0.26% since the early 1980s, over one quarter of the productivity growth of 1% in the data. Further, our implied measure of productivity growth moves closely over time with measured productivity growth in the data.
    JEL: E02 E1 O1 O4 O51
    Date: 2019–06
  7. By: Niken Kusumawardhani; Daniel Suryadarma; Luca Tiberti; Veto Tyas
    Abstract: The abundance of small enterprises in developing countries has led to debates regarding the role that of entrepreneurial skill in business performance. Analyses of the skills and characteristics important for success can inform entrepreneurship training programs or educational curricula designed to increase the number of successful entrepreneurs. We addressed these issues in the context of Indonesia, a low-middle-income country in which almost half of workers are self-employed. After developing a conceptual framework linking fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and educational attainment, we estimated the effect of these different types of intelligence on the profit and value of non-farm-household businesses. We found that fluid intelligence had sizeable and positive returns on business. On the other hand, crystallized intelligence had a positive and large effect only in sectors that required intense concentration or computers. Some heterogeneous effects regarding business size were also found. Our results were robust when we controlled for possible selection into non- farm entrepreneurship.
    Keywords: cognitive skills, human capital, entrepreneurship, household firm, farm business, non-farm business
    JEL: J24 O15 L26
    Date: 2019
  8. By: ALBERTI Valentina (European Commission - JRC); ALONSO RAPOSO Maria (European Commission - JRC); ATTARDO Carmelo (European Commission - JRC); AUTERI Davide (European Commission - JRC); RIBEIRO BARRANCO Ricardo (European Commission - JRC); BATISTA E SILVA Filipe (European Commission - JRC); BENCZUR Peter (European Commission - JRC); BERTOLDI Paolo (European Commission - JRC); BONO Flavio (European Commission - JRC); BUSSOLARI Ioris (European Commission - JRC); LOURO CALDEIRA Sandra (European Commission - JRC); CARLSSON Johan (European Commission - JRC); CHRISTIDIS Panayotis (European Commission - JRC); CHRISTODOULOU Aris (European Commission - JRC); CIUFFO Biagio (European Commission - JRC); CORRADO Sara (European Commission - JRC); FIORETTI Carlotta (European Commission - JRC); GALASSI Maria Cristina (European Commission - JRC); GALBUSERA Luca (European Commission - JRC); GAWLIK Bernd (European Commission - JRC); GIUSTI Francesco (European Commission - JRC); GOMEZ PRIETO Javier (European Commission - JRC); GROSSO Monica (European Commission - JRC); MARTINHO GUIMARAES PIRES PEREIRA Angela (European Commission - JRC); JACOBS Christiaan (European Commission - JRC); KAVALOV Boyan (European Commission - JRC); KOMPIL Mert (European Commission - JRC); KUCAS Andrius (European Commission - JRC); KONA Albana (European Commission - JRC); LAVALLE Carlo (European Commission - JRC); LEIP Adrian (European Commission - JRC); LYONS Lorcan (European Commission - JRC); MANCA Anna Rita (European Commission - JRC); MELCHIORRI Michele (European Commission - JRC); MONFORTI-FERRARIO Fabio (European Commission - JRC); MONTALTO Valentina (European Commission - JRC); MORTARA Barbara (European Commission - JRC); NATALE Fabrizio (European Commission - JRC); PANELLA Francesco (European Commission - JRC); PASI Giulio (European Commission - JRC); PERPINA CASTILLO Carolina (European Commission - JRC); PERTOLDI Martina (European Commission - JRC); PISONI Enrico (European Commission - JRC); ROQUE MENDES POLVORA Alexandre (European Commission - JRC); RAINOLDI Alessandro (European Commission - JRC); REMBGES Diana (European Commission - JRC); RISSOLA Gabriel Julio (European Commission - JRC); SALA Serenella (European Commission - JRC); SCHADE Sven (European Commission - JRC); SERRA Natalia (European Commission - JRC); SPIRITO Laura (European Commission - JRC); TSAKALIDIS Anastasios (European Commission - JRC); SCHIAVINA Marcello (European Commission - JRC); TINTORI Guido (European Commission - JRC); VACCARI Lorenzino (European Commission - JRC); VANDYCK Toon (European Commission - JRC); VANHAM Davy (European Commission - JRC); VAN HEERDEN Sjoerdje (European Commission - JRC); VAN NOORDT Colin (European Commission - JRC); VESPE Michele (European Commission - JRC); VETTERS Nadja (European Commission - JRC); VILAHUR CHIARAVIGLIO Nadia (European Commission - JRC); VIZCAINO Maria Pilar (European Commission - JRC); VON ESTORFF Ulrik (European Commission - JRC); ZULIAN Grazia (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: This report is an initiative of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the science and knowledge service of the European Commission (EC), and supported by the Commission's Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO). It highlights drivers shaping the urban future, identifying both the key challenges cities will have to address and the strengths they can capitalise on to proactively build their desired futures. The main aim of this report is to raise open questions and steer discussions on what the future of cities can, and should be, both within the science and policymaker communities. While addressing mainly European cities, examples from other world regions are also given since many challenges and solutions have a global relevance. The report is particularly novel in two ways. First, it was developed in an inclusive manner – close collaboration with the EC’s Community of Practice on Cities (CoP-CITIES) provided insights from the broader research community and city networks, including individual municipalities, as well as Commission services and international organisations. It was also extensively reviewed by an Editorial Board. Secondly, the report is supported by an online ‘living’ platform which will host future updates, including additional analyses, discussions, case studies, comments and interactive maps that go beyond the scope of the current version of the report. Steered by the JRC, the platform will offer a permanent virtual space to the research, practice and policymaking community for sharing and accumulating knowledge on the future of cities. This report is produced in the framework of the EC Knowledge Centre for Territorial Policies and is part of a wider series of flagship Science for Policy reports by the JRC, investigating future perspectives concerning Artificial Intelligence, the Future of Road Transport, Resilience, Cybersecurity and Fairness Interactive online platform: ofcities
    Keywords: cities, urban development, demographic trends, housing, accessibility, innovation, spatial planning, smart city
    JEL: R00 R12 R14 R2 R3 R4 R5 C31 J1 P25
    Date: 2019–06
  9. By: Giuseppe Berlingieri; Sara Calligaris; Chiara Criscuolo
    Abstract: The evidence that bigger firms pay higher wages and have higher productivity is based mainly on manufacturing, which is only a small share of today's economy. Giuseppe Berlingieri, Sara Calligaris and Chiara Criscuolo reveal that while the size premia for both wages and productivity are significantly weaker in market services than in manufacturing, the link between wages and productivity is stronger.
    Keywords: productivity, size-premium, wages
    JEL: E2 D2 J3
    Date: 2019–07
  10. By: Audretsch, David (Indiana University); Link, Albert (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)
    Abstract: The premise of this paper is that a basis for firms receiving Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) research awards to develop commercializable technologies is not only their proposed creative ideas but also their endowment of attendant knowledge necessary to develop the technology being proposed. Based on this premise, we propose that those firms that have higher growth rates attributable to their SBIR awards are also those firms that are more creative and have more knowledge endowments. Empirically, we quantify a firm's creativity and its sources of research knowledge in terms of its past experiences, and we find that firms with more technical experience and sector experience are those that have realized higher growth rates from their SBIR-funded research.
    Keywords: knowledge; creativity; entrepreneurship; SBIR program; technology;
    JEL: D83 H43 L26 O33 O38
    Date: 2019–07–01
  11. By: Abdelkrim Araar; Yesuf Mohammednur Awel; Jonse Bane Boka; Hiywot Menker; Ajebush Shafi; Eleni Yitbarek; Mulatu Zerihun
    Abstract: This study evaluates the impact of business-development-support programs (credit, training, and a combination of both) on the performance of micro- and small enterprises (MSEs) in Ethiopia. Using 2015 Ethiopian urban survey data and employing endogenous-switching regressions for multiple treatments, we document a positive and significant effect of credit, training, and a combination of training and credit on MSEs. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in treatment effects between women- and men-owned MSEs: women-owned businesses do not benefit from access to treatments. Our results suggest that improving the performance of MSEs requires fine-tuned interventions that meet the specific needs of men and women who own small businesses rather than one-size-fits-all programs.
    Keywords: Treatment effects, MSEs, Ethiopia
    JEL: C31 J16 M21
    Date: 2019
  12. By: Tapas Kundu (Oslo Business School, Oslo Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, School of Business and Economics, UiT the Arctic University of Norway); Seongwuk Moon (Sogang University Graduate School of Management of Technology)
    Abstract: We develop a model to understand how competition for innovation affects the organization of research activity and property-rights allocation in science-based industries. We consider a vertical production process with a division of labour between research and commercialization. We analyze firms’ incentive for integration in the presence of upstream competition for innovation. Integration adversely affects an integrated firm’s R&D investment and creates positive externality for the independent firms. For a sufficiently strong externality, a semiintegrated structure appears in equilibrium. The model can thus explain the coexistence of integrated and independent research firms and conforms to the evidence of R&D competition in science-based industries. Interestingly, a non-integrated arrangement can sometime appear in equilibrium even though a semi-integrated arrangement has higher innovation probability and aggregate industry payoff. This is because those who gain from integration cannot commit to compensate the losing parties at the contracting stage. We analyze the effects of resource constraints and inter-customer licensing on the industry structure and their implications for the competition for innovation.
    Keywords: R&D contest; Innovation, Vertical integration; Science-based Industry.
    JEL: L22 O31 O32
    Date: 2017–09–21
  13. By: De Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Decarolis, Francesco; Iossa, Elisabetta; Leonardo Giuffrida, Leonardo; Mollisi, Vincenzo; Raiteri, Emilio; Spagnolo, Giancarlo
    Abstract: What is the impact of buyers on the performance of innovation procurement? In which phase of the procurement process are buyers most crucial and why? We address these questions by exploiting a novel dataset that links U.S. federal R&D contracts to their follow-on patents, citations and claims. Using the deaths of managers in the offices close to where contracts are performed as shocks to the functioning of these offices, we measure a positive and sizable effect of public buyers on all three outcome measures. The buyer's role is stronger in the pre-award, tender-design phase, where cooperation between different specialists is essential, than in the following contract-management phase typically performed by individual officers. Consistently, bureaus where employees perceive high level of cooperation within the office are associated with better R&D outcomes.
    Keywords: Buyers; Innovation; Management Practices; patents; Procurement; R&D Procurement
    JEL: H11 H57 O31 O32 O38
    Date: 2019–06
  14. By: Francesco Paolo Conteduca; Ekaterina Kazakova
    Abstract: This paper studies foreign-market entry patterns in the professional services industry. We build a structural model of horizontal foreign direct investment (FDI) with firms that are heterogeneous in terms of service quality. Firms can choose to serve foreign markets via exporting, cross-border mergers (M&A), or greenfield investment. Greenfield investment and exporting are subject to the standard proximity-concentration tradeoff and, in addition, associated with uncertainty about foreign quality perception, while M&A resolves this uncertainty by letting multinationals access the demand of the acquired firm. Reproduction of high quality abroad potentially requires larger fixed entry costs, inducing high-quality service firms to export. The model is sufficiently flexible to accommodate different orderings of entry types in terms of firm’s service quality. We then structurally estimate the fundamental market-specific parameters of the model using firm-level FDI and trade data for a sample of German firms. We find that entry patterns are reversed compared to the standard sorting in manufacturing: only the firms providing the highest service quality export, while lower-quality firms conduct FDI. The relative sorting of M&A vs. greenfield FDI in terms of firm quality is market-specific and depends on the relative importance of uncertainty about quality perception, the structure of entry costs, and size of synergies associated with M&A. Finally, we calibrate the model equilibrium to the data on multinational and trade flows between the EU, the US, and the rest of the world. Simulation of the service-trade liberalization between the EU and the US, as planned for TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), shows that the reduction of non-tariff trade barriers and introduction of quality standards reallocate quality across entry alternatives, as well as make FDI a more prominent entry type
    Keywords: Multinational Firms, Foreign Direct Investment, Mergers, Greenfield Investment, Services
    JEL: F14 F23
    Date: 2018–01
  15. By: Giulio Federico; Fiona Scott Morton; Carl Shapiro
    Abstract: The goal of antitrust policy is to protect and promote a vigorous competitive process. Effective rivalry spurs firms to introduce new and innovative products, as they seek to capture profitable sales from their competitors and to protect their existing sales from future challengers. In this fundamental way, competition promotes innovation. We apply this basic insight to the antitrust treatment of horizontal mergers and of exclusionary conduct by dominant firms. A merger between rivals internalizes business-stealing effects arising from their parallel innovation efforts and thus tends to depress innovation incentives. Merger-specific synergies, such as the internalization of involuntary spillovers or an increase in the productivity of R&D, may offset the adverse effect of a merger on innovation. We describe the possible effects of a merger on innovation by developing a taxonomy of cases, with reference to recent U.S. and E.U. examples. A dominant firm may engage in exclusionary conduct to eliminate the threat from disruptive firms. This suppresses innovation by foreclosing disruptive rivals and by reducing the pressure to innovative on the incumbent. We apply this broad principle to possible exclusionary strategies by dominant firms.
    JEL: L1 L10 L12 L13 L4 O3
    Date: 2019–06
  16. By: Lorenza Rossi; Emilio Zanetti Chini
    Abstract: We provide new disaggregated data and stylized facts on firm dynamics of the U.S economy by using a state-space method to transform Census yearly data of entry and exit from 1977 to 2013 into quarterly frequency. Entry is lagging and symmetric, while exit is leading and asymmetric along the business cycle. We select the most significant determinants of these variables by matching Census data with a new database by Federal Reserve. These determinants differ considerably among entry and exit. Finally, standard macroeconometric models estimated on our disaggregated series support the recent theoretical literature, according to which the cleansing effect of recession is mainly due to exit asymmetry.
    Keywords: Bayesian VAR; Firms and Establishments; Productivity; State-Space Models
    JEL: C13 C32 C40 E30 E32
    Date: 2019–06
  17. By: Crick, Florence; Eskander, Shaikh M.S.U.; Fankhauser, Samuel; Diop, Mamadou
    Abstract: This paper investigates to what extent and how micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries are adapting to climate risks. We use a questionnaire survey to collect data from 325 SMEs in the semi-arid regions of Kenya and Senegal and analyze this information to estimate the quality of current adaptation measures, distinguishing between sustainable and unsustainable adaptation. We then study the link between these current adaptation practices and adaptation planning for future climate change. We find that financial barriers are a key reason why firms resort to unsustainable adaptation, while general business support, access to information technology and adaptation assistance encourages sustainable adaptation responses. Engaging in adaptation today also increases the likelihood that a firm is preparing for future climate change. The finding lends support to the strategy of many development agencies who use adaptation to current climate variability as a way of building resilience to future climate change. There is a clear role for public policy in facilitating good adaptation. The ability of firms to respond to climate risks depends in no small measure on factors such as business environment that can be shaped through policy intervention. Highlights: - Adaptive capacity determines the quality of current adaptation measures of SMEs. - Supportive business environment encourages sustainable adaptation responses. - Financial barriers lead SMEs to unsustainable adaptation practices. - Current adaptation practices influence the planning for future climate change. - Policy interventions can influence SMEs’ ability to respond to climatic risks.
    Keywords: ES/K006576/1
    JEL: J1
    Date: 2018–04–13

This nep-sbm issue is ©2019 by João Carlos Correia Leitão. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.