This paper examines the long-standing theory that the growth of small firms is often constrained by the quantity of internal finance. Under plausible assumptions, when financing constraints are binding, an additional dollar of internal finance should generate slightly more than an additional dollar of growth in assets. This quantitative prediction should not hold for the relatively small number of firms which access external equity. We test these predictions with a panel of more than 1, 600 small firms and find that the growth of most firms is constrained by internal finance. Our results have implications for several different research literatures, including models of firm growth.

Charles P. Himmelberg, Bruce C. Petersen, R & D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 38-51

The authors reply to the comment by D. R. Kamerschen and J. Park on their 1988 paper published in this Review. They find that the econometric point raised by these authors is flawed, because differences in model structure and data are ignored. In particular, the importance of materials input in assessing price-cost margins is reiterated here and illustrated with the 1988 paper's original table. Other points of the comment are refuted by direct reference to statistical results and inferred conclusions in the 1988 paper.

The relevance of imperfect competition for models of aggregate economic fluctuations has received increased attention from researchers in both macroeconomics and industrial organization.Measuring properly the size of industry markups of price over marginal cost is important both for assessing the role of market structure and for determining the extent to which excess capacity is a significant feature accompanying imperfect competition in American industry.Using a panel data set on four-digit Census manufacturing industries, this paper expand8 recent work by Robert Hall on the importance of market structure for understanding cyclical fluctuations.We outline a methodology for estimating industry markups of price over cost and the influence of market structure on cyclical movements in total factor productivity.While we find evidence to support the proposition that price exceeds marginal cost In U.S. manufacturing, our results offer only limited support for the notion that markups are importantly related to differences in Industry concentration, though the effect of unionization is important.Concentration effects are important only in industries producing durable goods or differentiated con8umer goods.In addition, much of the estimated markup of price over marginal cost is accounted for by fixed costs related to overhead labor, advertising, and central office expenses; we do not find compelling evidence of substantial evidence of excess capacity in most industries.

This study provides new evidence of the importance of financing constraints for explaining the dramatic cycles in inventory investment. We compare the empirical performance of different financial variables (coverage ratio, cash stocks, and cash flow) used in previous research to test for the presence of financing constraints. The comparison is undertaken in a common framework with an identical sample and high-frequency (quarterly) firm panel data. Cash flow is much more successful than cash stocks or coverage in explaining the facts about inventory investment across firm size, different inventory cycles, and different manufacturing sectors.