1 / 17

The Local Distribution and Determinants of HGFs in selected OECD countries

The Local Distribution and Determinants of HGFs in selected OECD countries . Professor Mark Hart & Dr Yama Temouri Economics & Strategy Group OECD International workshop: 28 th March 2012. Presentation Plan. Project Outline 2. Data 3. Methodological Issues

adonai
Download Presentation

The Local Distribution and Determinants of HGFs in selected OECD countries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Local Distribution and Determinants of HGFs in selected OECD countries Professor Mark Hart & Dr Yama Temouri Economics & Strategy Group OECD International workshop: 28th March 2012

  2. Presentation Plan • Project Outline • 2. Data • 3. Methodological Issues • 4. Incidence of High-growth firms

  3. Project Outline • Task 1: Show distributions of HGF locations for a selected number of OECD countries. • By age of firms • By size of firms • By industrial sector of firms (2-digit industries, high-tech versus low-tech) • By ownership types (foreign versus domestic) • Task 2: Estimate the determinants for the incidence of HGFs, with special emphasis on local factors. • Firm level variables • Local factors at NUTS-2/3 level.

  4. Research Questions - Stage 2 • Does locality matter in determining the number of HGFs? • We know from previous research that there are key local drivers of small firm growth in the UK (Hart and McGuinness, 2003) • Towards a model of the Incidence of HGF • HGF = Population Density (proxy for Urban/agglomeration effects) + GDP measure (in the base year for the 3-year HGF metric) + change in inactivity/unemployment + educ/skills (social capital measure). • However, priority is to establish how robust the Orbis (BvD) dataset is to enable us to undertake this work

  5. Data & Sources • Orbis (Bureau van Dijk) • Focus on the most recent 3 year period  2006 – 2009 • Firm-level data (Orbis) : Turnover; Employees, Assets, Business Age, Cash Flow, industry affiliation, location, ownership • Local determinants (Eurostat): Labour market characteristics, Human Capital (education/skills), inactivity/unemployment, local demand conditions (cost of land & labour), stock and dynamics of existing enterprise activity, population density.

  6. Methodological Issues • Number of Firms (10+ employees) extracted from Orbis are significantly smaller than those obtained from the population data for each country. • For example, in the UK for the 2006-09 period there are ~12,000 HGFs based on ONS data (see Anyadike-Danes; Bonner and Hart, 2011) – whereas from Orbis there are 1,607 HGFs (both use the employment definition) • We know that smaller firms may not report full accounts  leading to bias towards larger firms - which is in fact what we observe (insert chart on next slide)

  7. Comparison HGFs vsnon-HGFs – 2006-09

  8. Employment Size Distribution of HGFs in the UK

  9. Methodological Issues (contd.) • Calls into question the ability to undertake sub-national analysis at NUTS 2 or NUTS 3 level – • …..the incidence of HGFs for these geographical areas will be based on very small numbers • Robust econometric models will be difficult to estimate.

  10. Incidence of HGFs – Selected Countries 2006-09

  11. Incidence of HGFs – 2006-09

  12. Belgium: 4.7% (947 firms/20,310) – Top 5 PU = predominantly urban; IN = intermediate; PR = predominantly rural Source: European Commission (DG REGIO and DG AGRI)

  13. Denmark: 4.8% (475 firms/9,950) – Top 5 PU = predominantly urban; IN = intermediate; PR = predominantly rural Source: European Commission (DG REGIO and DG AGRI)

  14. Italy: 5.0% (2,548 firms/50,458) – Top 5 PU = predominantly urban; IN = intermediate; PR = predominantly rural Source: European Commission (DG REGIO and DG AGRI)

  15. United Kingdom: 6.0% (1,607 firms/26,599) – Top 5 PU = predominantly urban; IN = intermediate; PR = predominantly rural Source: European Commission (DG REGIO and DG AGRI)

  16. Germany: 4.0% (1,787 firms/44,867) – Top 5 NUTS 3 Analysis not yet completed for Germany PU = predominantly urban; IN = intermediate; PR = predominantly rural Source: European Commission (DG REGIO and DG AGRI)

  17. Thank you

More Related