Search
Search

Marginal q revisited

PublicationArticle (with peer review)
Financing of Innovations, Företagandets villkor, Investering, Marginal q, Per-Olof Bjuggren, Tobin’s q

Abstract

Two measures of firm investment behaviour used in the empirical research are Tobin’s q (average q) and marginal q. The marginal q is a more recently introduced measure than Tobin’s q and is not as well known. This article aims to demonstrate the advantages of using marginal q as a performance measure and is a response to an earlier critical article (Berglund, 2011) claiming an elusiveness bias. The pro arguments made in response are that the claimed elusiveness is not a problem. Furthermore, many of the evaluation problems inherent in the empirical use of Tobin’s q, like estimation of replacement cost of assets, can be avoided. From a pure theoretical standpoint, it has long been recognized that marginal q is superior to an average measure of investment behaviour such as Tobin’s q.

Bjuggren, P.-O. (2016). Marginal q revisited. Applied Economics, 48(1), 52-58. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1073842

Similar content

Working Paper No. 355: The artificial intelligence (AI) data access regime: what are the factors affecting the access and sharing of industrial AI data?
Working paperPublication
Bjuggren, P.O. & Long, V.
Download
Publication year

2022

Published in

Bjuggren, P.O. & Long, V.

Abstract

This paper decomposes the factors that govern the access and sharing of machine-generated industrial data in the artificial intelligence era. Through a mapping of the key technological, institutional, and firm-level factors that affect the choice of governance structures, this study provides a synthesised view of AI data-sharing and coordination mechanisms. The question to be asked here is whether the hitherto de facto control—bilateral contracts and technical solution-dominating industrial practices in data sharing—can handle the long-run exchange needs or not.

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – a critique of the entrepreneurial state
Article (with peer review)Publication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Published in

Review of Austrian Economics 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-020-00508-7

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Working Paper no. 331: Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – A critique of the entrepreneurial state
Working paperPublication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C. & Wennberg, K.
Download
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Show more