In this article, we use cross-state panel and cross-U.S. commuting-zone data to look at the relationship between innovation, top income inequality and social mobility. We find positive correlations between measures of innovation and top income inequality. We also show that the correlations between innovation and broad measures of inequality are not significant. Next, using instrumental variable analysis, we argue that these correlations at least partly reflect a causality from innovation to top income shares. Finally, we show that innovation, particularly by new entrants, is positively associated with social mobility, but less so in local areas with more intense lobbying activities

Using panel data on top management characteristics and a management quality factor constructed using common factor analysis on individual management quality measures, we analyze the relation between top firm management quality and corporate innovation input and output. We show that top management quality is an important determinant of corporate innovation, with individual aspects of management quality affecting innovation in younger and older firms differently. Further, firms with higher top management quality engage in more risky (“explorative”) innovation strategies. Finally, hiring more and higher-quality inventors is an important channel through which firms with higher management quality achieve greater innovation output

We build a model of endogenous, innovation-driven growth in which innovative firms have costly access to outside financing and hoard cash reserves to maintain financial flexibility. We show that financing frictions slow down Schumpeterian creative destruction by discouraging entry. As a result, financing frictions importantly affect the composition of growth, by reducing the contribution of entrants but spurring the contribution of incumbents. We investigate the net impact of these countervailing effects on the equilibrium growth rate and welfare

We examine the quantitative impact of policy-induced changes in firms’ innovative investment on growth in aggregate productivity and output in a model that nests several of the canonical models. We isolate two statistics, the impact elasticity of aggregate productivity growth with respect to aggregate innovative investment and the degree of intertemporal knowledge spillovers in research, that shape the model’s predicted dynamic response to a change in the innovation intensity of the economy. Given measures of these statistics, there is only modest scope for increasing aggregate productivity and output over a 20-year horizon with uniform innovation subsidies to firms’ investments in innovation of a reasonable magnitude, but the welfare gains may be substantial

We analyze the effect of a firm's innovation activities on its likelihood to be acquired and the takeover premium using a large sample of M&A transactions. We show that firms with larger innovation outputs and R&D investments are more likely to be acquired, receive unsolicited bids, and receive multiple bids. The takeover premium increases with the target firm's innovation output, and this positive relation is stronger when there are more competing bidders, when acquiring firms’ product markets are competitive, and when technological proximity is lower in the acquiring firms’ industry. Both the acquirer's cumulative abnormal return around the announcement date and post-acquisition operating performance are positively related to the target firm's innovation output and R&D spending

Elevated levels of government debt raise concerns about their effects on long-term growth prospects. Using the cross-section of US stock returns, we show that (i) high-R&D firms are more exposed to government debt and pay higher expected returns than low-R&D firms, and (ii) higher levels of the debt-to-GDP ratio predict higher risk premiums for high-R&D firms. Furthermore, rises in the cost of capital for innovation-intensive firms predict declines in subsequent productivity and economic growth. We propose a production-based asset pricing model with endogenous innovation and fiscal policy shocks that can rationalize key aspects of the empirical evidence. Our study highlights a novel and distinct risk channel shaping the link between government debt and future growth

Endogenous demand composition across sectors due to income elasticity differences, or Engel's Law for brevity, affects (i) sectoral compositions in employment and in value‐added, (ii) variations in innovation rates and in productivity change across sectors, (iii) intersectoral patterns of trade across countries, and (iv) product cycles from rich to poor countries. Using a two‐country model of directed technical change with a continuum of sectors under nonhomothetic preferences, which is rich enough to capture all these effects as well as their interactions, this paper offers a unifying perspective on how economic growth and globalization affect the patterns of structural change, innovation, and trade across countries and across sectors in the presence of Engel's Law. Among the main messages is that globalization amplifies, instead of reducing, the power of endogenous domestic demand composition differences as a driver of structural change

This paper studies liability management exercises (LME) by banks, which have comparable regulatory capital effects than contingent capital triggers. LMEs are concentrated on low capitalization situations, both in the cross-section and in the time series and are frequently associated with equity issuances. These exercises prove effective at improving bank capitalization levels. The market reaction to LMEs is positive and mostly accrues to debt holders. These findings strengthen the case for innovative liabilities securities as a tool to improve bank resilience. Received February 8, 2019; editorial decision May 16, 2019 by Editor Andrew Ellul

From 2007 to 2016, S&P 500 firms distributed $7 trillion via buybacks and dividends, over 96% of their aggregate net income, prompting claims that “short-termism” is impairing firms’ ability to invest and innovate. We show that, accounting for both direct and indirect equity issuances, net shareholder payouts by all public firms during this period totaled only 41% of net income. And, during this decade, investment substantially increased while cash balances ballooned. In short, S&P 500 shareholder-payout figures cannot provide much basis for the notion that short-termism has been depriving public firms of needed capital. Received September 23, 2018; Editorial decision November 13, 2018; Editor Andrew Ellul

This study explores the decision-facilitating role of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in firms attempting to translate competence ambidexterity (i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation) into innovation ambidexterity outcomes (i.e., the achievement of both radical and incremental innovations). Drawing on paradox and organisational conflict literature, this study emphasises the role of cognitive conflict, generated by PMSs, in shaping the relationships between competence ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity. Based on survey data from a sample of 90 Irish firms, our findings indicate that competence ambidexterity is associated with (a) the choice to have a balanced set of performance measures, and (b) the use of PMSs for frequent and intensive debate between top managers. Furthermore, the study reveals that these choices are interdependent, as they function as complements in generating cognitive conflict, which in turn drives the realisation of innovation ambidexterity outcomes. The results also show that cognitive conflict is not directly associated with the development of competence ambidexterity, but is instead generated through the conjoint action of a balanced PMS design and the use of PMSs for intensive debate. Overall, this study demonstrates the interdependent nature of choices concerning the design and use of PMSs, and the significant role of PMSs as generators of cognitive conflict in firms attempting to achieve ambidexterity