4.7 Article

Peer effects on corporate R&D investment policies: A spatial panel model approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 158, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113667

Keywords

R&D peer effects; Reflection problem; Spatial panel model; R& D subsidies

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using a spatial panel model with network-structure peer groups and data on listed manufacturing firms in China, this study investigates the impact of a firm's R&D expenditure on its peers' R&D policies. The findings show that peer firms' R&D expenditures play a crucial role in determining corporate R&D investment policies, with competition and information incentives being the key channels. Additionally, the study reveals that R&D subsidies can indirectly increase a firm's R&D via the endogenous effect. This research provides empirical evidence of peer effects on corporate policies and highlights the importance of considering firms' networks in policy design.
Identifying peer effects has important policy implications because endogenous peer effects can amplify policy effects. Using a spatial panel model with network-structure peer groups and data on listed manufacturing firms in China, we investigate whether a firm's R&D expenditure affects its peers' R&D policies. Our results show: (1) peer firms' R&D expenditures play an essential role in determining corporate R&D investment policies; (2) competition and information incentives are the two main underlying channels; and (3) R&D subsidies can indirectly increase a firm's R&D via the endogenous effect. Using a novel identification strategy, this study provides additional empirical evidence of peer effects on corporate policies. The findings contribute to our understanding of the impacts of R&D subsidies and indicate that the overall policy effect can be leveraged by considering firms' networks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available