Panel tests of Gibrat’s Law for Japanese manufacturing

By John Goddard, John O. S. Wilson, P. Blandon. 2002

210 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e460d097513d7d4c31de2cc8934b77c0304fada2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

High-growth entrepreneurial firms in Africa: a quantile regression approach (2010, background): “negative relationship between firm growth and size (Mansfield 1962; Kumar 1985; Evans 1987; Dunne and Hughes 1994; Goddard et al. 2002; Yasuda 2005; Calvo 2006) and between the variability in growth and firm size.”
Dynamics of Growth and Profitability in Banking (2004, background): “In contrast, Hart and Prais (1956) identify an inverse size-growth relationship for some time periods, and therefore reject the LPE.”
High-growth SMEs versus non-high-growth SMEs: a discriminant analysis (2007, background): “…to reject the basic postulates of Gibrat’s Law (1931), in such a way that smaller firms seem to exhibit higher growth rates than their larger counterparts (Evans 1987, Wagner 1992, Dunne and Hugues 1994, Reid 1995, Weiss 1998, Bechetti and Trovato 2002, Goddard et al. 2002, Correa et al. 2003).”
Are high-growth firms one-hit wonders? Evidence from Sweden (2015, methodology): “Some have found that firm growth is characterized by positive autocorrelation rates (Dunne and Hughes, 1994), whereas others have found the opposite (Goddard et al, 2002b).”
Firm size, age, industrial networking, and growth: a case of the Korean manufacturing industry (2010, methodology): “Goddard et al. (2002) apply panel unit root tests to investigate the size-growth relationship among Japanese manufacturing firms and find strong evidence against Gibrat’s law.”
Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and developing countries (2013, background): “On the other hand, a vast number of papers have found (conditional on survival) a negative relationship between start-up size and post-entry growth, thus rejecting Gibrat’s Law (Gibrat, 1931; Hall, 1987; Hart and Oulton, 1996; Sutton, 1997; Goddard et al., 2002; Lotti et al., 2003, 2009; Bottazzi an”
Firm Growth and Liquidity Constraints: A Dynamic Analysis (2006, background): “tures of growth rates’ independence from firm size include Kumar (1985), Hall (1987) and Evans (1987a, 1987b).”
Firm Growth : a Survey (2007, unknown): “On the other hand, negative serial correlation has also been reported – some examples are Boeri and Cramer (1992) for German firms, Goddard et al. (2002) for quoted Japanese firms, Bottazzi et al. (2007) for Italian manufacturing, and Bottazzi et al. (2005) for French manufacturing.”
Patterns of Entry, Post-Entry Growth and Survival: A Comparison Between Domestic and Foreign Owned Firms (2004, background): “In general, studies that have addressed the patterns of survival of newly founded firms found exit to be a very likely event among new firms (Audretsch et al., 1999; Almus and Nerlinger, 2000; Goddard et al., 2002 ).”
Do Firms Use the Trade Credit Channel to Manage Growth? (2013, unknown): “Our econometric model follows Coluzzi et al. (2012) who use an augmented version of the law of proportionate effect (LPE), as proposed by Goddard et al. (2002), to estimate the impact of financing obstacles on firm performance.”