Firms in integrating Europe [Elektronische Ressource] : innovation, trade and productivity / vorgelegt von Thorsten Hansen

Thorsten Hansen

Informations

• Publié par: ludwig-maximilians-universitat_munchen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 32
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Firms in Integrating Europe:
Innovation, Trade and Productivity
Inaugural-Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Grades
Doctor oeconomiae publicae (Dr. oec. publ.)
an der Volkswirtschaftlichen Fakult at
der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit at
Munc hen
2010
vorgelegt von
Thorsten Hansen
Referent: Professor Dr. Dalia Marin
Korreferent: Dr. Monika Schnitzer
Promotionsabschlussberatung: 10. Februar 2010Acknowledgments
During the course of researching and writing this thesis I have faced chal-
lenging academic problems but also experienced immense support and en-
couragement from a large number of people. First of all, I want to gratefully
mention my supervisor Prof. Dr. Dalia Marin for her excellent academic
guidance and support. She gave me helpful advice and continuously encour-
aged me with plenty of new approaches. The conversations with her helped
my economic understanding far beyond the scope of my thesis. Furthermore,
she gave me the chance to participate in di erent research projects about
eastern enlargement. I am deeply indebted to her giving me the opportunity
to pursue my research as a member of an excellent faculty.
Secondly, I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Monika Schnitzer and Prof. Dr. Andreas
Hau er for accepting to co-supervise my thesis.
I would like to thank my colleagues at the Chair for International Eco-
nomics: Ivan Andreev, Peter Beerman, Eliot Culp, Francesca Fabbri, Alexan-
der Raubold, Linda Rousova, and Michael Seitz for their personal support
and helpful suggestions. Discussions with them were very insightful and mo-
tivating. Numerous other members of the faculty as well as participants of
the internal seminar at the Chair for International Economics made my re-
search experience more worthwhile. Without all the friends and colleagues
the course of writing this thesis would have been much more di cult and
less fun. My thanks go also to the Economic Business and Data Center for
providing me with a considerable part of the underlying data. I am also
thankful to my colleague Matthias Dischinger for his support concerning
data retrieval and access. In addition, nancial support from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft through SFB/TR15 is gratefully acknowledged.
I am deeply thankful to Helena Voith von Voithenberg for her helpful com-
ments, patience, and encouragement during my writing phase. Finally, I
would like to thank my mother and my father for believing in the success
of this project from the very beginning. Without their support this thesis
would have been much less likely to come into existence.Contents
Contents i
List of Figures iii
List of Tables iv
List of Abbreviations vi
1 Introduction 1
2 Innovation and the International Firm Structure: Theory
and Evidence from German Firm-Level Data 6
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Innovation and the Firm Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 A Literature Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Invention and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3 German and Eastern European Innovation Performance 18
2.3 Intellectual Property Rights and the Organizational Structure 23
2.3.1 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.2 The Basic Model in a Closed Economy . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.3 The Open Economy Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.4 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4 Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.1 Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.2 Descriptives and Estimation Methodology . . . . . . . 37
2.4.3 Empirical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.4.4 Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
i2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix to Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3 Tari Rates, O shoring and Productivity: Evidence from
German and Austrian Firm-Level Data 64
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2.1 Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2.2 Study by Amiti and Konings (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3 Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.4 Estimation methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.4.1 Basic Estimation Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.4.2 Total Factor Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.4.3 Tari Rates: Construction and Descriptives . . . . . . 84
3.5 Empirical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.6 Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Appendix to Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4 Exports and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of German
and Austrian Firm-Level Performance 114
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.2 Exports and Productivity in Germany and Austria . . . . . . 118
4.3 Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.3.1 Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.3.2 Total Factor Productivity and Simultaneity Bias . . . . 126
4.3.3 Estimation methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.4 Descriptive results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.5 Empirical results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.6 Robustness: 2SLS Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Appendix to Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5 Concluding Remarks 154
Bibliography 157
iiList of Figures
2.1 Summary Innovation Index 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Patent applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Domestic vs. foreign relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4 vs. a liates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
F2.1 Patent applications by domestic residents . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.1 Change in output tari s (1994 - 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.2 Output tari variation over time (1994 - 2003) . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3 Tari rates and labor productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.4 Tari rates and real value added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.5 Input tari s and labor productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.6 Tari rates and o shoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
F3.1 Change in initial tari levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.1 Total exports in Austria and Germany (1994 - 2003) . . . . . 120
4.2 Austrian and German export evolution as a percentage of
GDP (1994 - 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.3 Austrian export ratio and labor productivity (1994 - 2003) . . 123
4.4 German export ratio and labor proy (1994 - 2003) . . 124
4.5 Export behavior and labor productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.6 Export behavior and TFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.7 Export intensity and TFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.8 Exporting vs. non-exporting and labor productivity . . . . . . 135
F4.1 Austrian export ratio and TFP (1994 - 2003) . . . . . . . . . . 152
F4.2 German export ratio and TFP (1994 - 2003) . . . . . . . . . . 153
iiiList of Tables
2.1 Patent applications and integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 Organizational structure in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Patents and the organizational structure in Germany . . . . . 44
2.4 structure with Eastern European countries . . 46
2.5 Patents and organizational structure in Eastern Europe . . . . 48
2.6 Organizational structure: Probit vs. OLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.7 Gap in the structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.8 Robustness: organizational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.9 2SLS regressions: structure . . . . . . . . . . . 57
T2.1 Central and Eastern European countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
T2.2 De nition of variables and sample statistics . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.1 Tari rates and TFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2 Tari rates and sectoral TFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.3 Country di erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.4 Channel of tari rates and o shoring on productivity . . . . . 98
3.5 Contribution of trade liberalization (in percent) . . . . . . . . 99
3.6 Tari rates and labor productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.7 Robustness: Trade liberalization and operating revenue . . . . 102
3.8 Country di erences and value added . . . . . . . 104
3.9 Robustness: Country and operating revenue . . . . 105
T3.1 Overview of empirical literature on trade liberalization and
productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
T3.2 German productivity estimations (industry level) . . . . . . . 110
T3.3 Austrian proy level) . . . . . . . 111
T3.4 Baltic, Central and Eastern European countries . . . . . . . . 112
T3.5 Robustness: Manufacturing vs. servi