\n\n“The authors find that “there is a sharp fall in the fraction of innovating firms just to the left of the regulatory threshold,” which they label an “innovation valley” because the regulatory consequences of increased employee size mean that firms choose not to innovate. This fact holds for firms’ responses to demand shocks, as firms “with size just below the regulatory threshold” choose not to increase production to meet this demand because of the regulatory implications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In total, the authors conclude that labor regulations equate to a 2.5 percent tax on profit, which reduces innovation by about 5.4 percent and “reduces welfare by at least 2.2% in consumption equivalent terms.” This tax on profit continues to affect firms to the right of the threshold, resulting in “a greater flattening of the positive relationship between innovation and firm size.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The authors examine the effects of labor regulations on firms with between 10 and 100 employees, noting that “many labor regulations apply to firms with 50 or more employees,” and measure the firms’ innovative capacity by the number of patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These regulations<\/a> force firms to devote resources away from production, including spending revenue on worker training, offering union representation, and creating profit-sharing schemes and a works council with employee representation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “We are not saying all regulations are bad, but rather it is important to go beyond the usual approach to thinking about costs and benefits which are short-term and generally ignore long-run innovation,” Van Reenen tells Reason<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “”Firms respond to incentives and disincentives and we find that even when firms experience positive developments, such as a surge in demand, they may still hesitate to invest in research and development and pursue innovation if they are near this size threshold,” Bergeaud explains to Reason<\/em>. “Indeed successful innovation implies growth, which, in this case, would mean crossing the 50-employee threshold and incurring additional costs.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another interesting finding of the study is that firms innovating under substantive regulation tend to “swing for the fence” since “regulation deters incremental R&D” and firms want “to avoid being only slightly to the right of the threshold.” While significant innovations garner media coverage and drastically affect consumer well-being, minor innovations also provide benefits, allowing firms to deal with immediate concerns<\/a> for less investment<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n