This paper empirically examines the evaluations of 537 ventures in high-growth industries performed by 251 experienced entrepreneurs, investors, and executives. These experts evaluated ventures by reading succinct summaries of the ventures without meeting the founding teams, and their evaluations were not disclosed to the entrepreneurs. We find that experts can differentiate among early-stage ventures on grounds of quality beyond the explicit venture and entrepreneur characteristics contained in the written summaries. They can only do so effectively, however, for ventures in the hardware, energy, life sciences, and medical devices sectors; they cannot do so for ventures in the consumer products, consumer web and mobile, and enterprise software sectors. Our results highlight sector-specific heterogeneity in the information needed to effectively screen ventures, a finding that has implications for the design of optimal investment strategies.

We track high-growth ventures from the idea stage to commercialization and investigate the nature of the gender gap early in the venture lifecycle. Using data on 651 venture ideas that collectively attracted over $700 million in venture financing, we find a significant gender gap among ventures without documented intellectual assets at the earliest stage of founding but not among ventures that already possess intellectual assets. We also find a gender gap in entrepreneurs' readiness to commit to their venture ideas full-time. Conditional on such commitment, there are no significant differences in ventures' access to venture financing or rate of commercialization.

Manufacturing accounts for more than three-quarters of US corporate patents. The competitive shock to this sector emanating from China's economic ascent could in theory either augment or stifle US innovation. Using three decades of US patents matched to corporate owners, we quantify how foreign competition affects domestic innovation. Rising import exposure intensifies competitive pressure, reducing sales, profitability, and R&D expenditure at US firms. Accounting for confounding sectoral patenting trends, we find that US patent production declines in sectors facing greater import competition. This adverse effect is larger among initially less profitable and less capital-intensive firms.

This chapter reviews the empirical economics literature on the impact of trade liberalization on firms’ innovation-related outcomes. We define and examine four types of shocks to trade flows: import competition, export opportunities, access to imported intermediates, and foreign input competition. Our review reveals interesting heterogeneities at the country and firm levels. In emerging countries, trade liberalization appears to spur productivity and innovation. In developed countries, export opportunities and access to imported intermediates tend to encourage innovation, but the evidence on import competition is mixed, especially for firms in the United States. At the firm level, the positive effects of trade on innovation are more pronounced at the initially more productive firms, while the negative effects are more pronounced at the initially less productive firms.

We study the impact of social identity on worker competition by exploiting the well-documented social divide between urban resident workers and rural migrant workers in urban Chinese firms. We analyze data on weekly output, individual characteristics, and coworker composition for all weavers in an urban Chinese textile firm during a 53-week period. The firm adopts relative performance incentives in addition to piece rates to encourage competition in the workplace. We find that social identity has a significant impact on competition: a weaver only competes against coworkers with a different social identity, but not against those sharing her own identity. The results are mainly driven by urban weavers competing aggressively against rural coworkers. Our results highlight the important role of social identity in mitigating or enhancing competition.

This paper provides empirical evidence of the existence of forward-looking asset-accumulation behavior among disability-insurance applicants, previously examined only in the theoretical literature. Using panel data from the RAND Health and Retirement Study, I show that rejected applicants for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) possess significantly more assets than accepted applicants immediately prior to application and exhibit lower attachment to the labor force. These empirical results are consistent with the theoretical prediction in Diamond and Mirrlees (1978) and Golosov and Tsyvinski (2006) that certain individuals with high unwillingness to work maximize utility by planning in advance for their future disability insurance application. Because the existing empirical literature on disability insurance does not account for this intertemporal channel, it may underestimate the total work-disincentive effect of SSDI.