R&D subsidies and private R&D expenditures: evidence from Italian manufacturing data

This paper uses a comprehensive firm level data set for the manufacturing sector in Italy to investigate the effect of government support on privately financed R&D expenditure. Estimates from a non‐parametric matching procedure suggest that public assistance has a positive effect on private R&D investment in the sense that the recipient firms achieve more private R&D than they would have without public support. This indicates that the possibility of perfect crowding out between private and public funds can be rejected. Furthermore, in this sample of Italian firms, tax incentives appear to be more effective than direct grants. The paper also examines whether public funding affects the financial sources available for R&D and finds that grants encourage the use of internal sources. The results also show some evidence of positive effects on credit financing for R&D.     

An Empirical Evaluation of The Effects of R&D Subsidies

R&D subsidies are a common tool of technology policy, but little is known about the effects they have on the behavior of firms. This paper presents evidence on the effects that R&D subsidies have on the R&D effort of recipients, and on the probability that a firm will participate in a program granting R&D subsidies. The empirical model consists of a system of equations: a participation equation; and an R&D effort equation. Endogeneity of public funding is controlled for. Estimates are obtained with a cross-section sample of Spanish firms. The main findings are that: 1) small firms are more likely to obtain a subsidy than large firms, probably reflecting one of the public agency's goals; 2) overall, public funding induces more private effort, but for some firms (30% of participants) full crowding out effects cannot be ruled out, and 3) firm size remains related to effort, whether or not a firm gets public funding.     

Public R&D subsidies,outside private support,and employment growth

In the aftermath of the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the employment effects of public subsidies have been scrutinized because of new emphasis on public accountability and transparency. In this paper, we investigate conditions in which public subsidies of research and development (R&D) in small firms stimulate employment growth. We find, based on an empirical analysis of employment growth induced by US Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research program awards, that the stimulated employment growth is greater under two conditions: one, the presence of outside investors providing additional funding for the R&D and, two, when an exceptional amount of intellectual property is created by the publicly subsidized R&D. In addition to outside investors, other firms that make commercial agreements with the subsidized firm appear important for the employment growth of the subsidized firm. Cooperation between the small business doing the R&D and other firms is an important determinant of the commercial success of the technologies created with the support of public funds.     

MANAGING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT: AN OPTIMAL ALLOCATION BETWEEN R&D AND PROTOTYPE FUNDING

The research and development manager allocates R&D funds to maximize the expected discounted net value of the R&D programme. Because public R&D managers do not have the same market discipline (or rewards) as private R&D managers, public R&D managers require a methodology for maximizing the expected net benefits. The US National Research Council of the National Academies in Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward (2005) proposed a cost-benefit methodology to evaluate US Department of Energy's Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) programmes. This paper specifies and extends this methodology, e.g., by adding cost targets into each stage of the RD&D process. Expected benefits are modelled as a function of funding levels, stage durations, stage transition probabilities, and target costs. With this method, the paper determines an optimal allocation of pre-prototype R&D funding, given a total funding constraint for an advanced energy system.     

Effectiveness of R&D subsidies during the crisis: firm-level evidence across EU countries

This paper is one of the first attempts in the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of R&D policies in Europe during the great crisis of the late 2000s. Using homogenous firm-level data for the largest EU Member States over the period 2007–2009, we test whether manufacturing firms receiving public subsidies spent more on R&D. The analysis is performed using both non-parametric techniques and parametric estimation methods accounting for the possible endogenous selectivity of R&D subsidies. The hypothesis of full crowding-out is rejected in all countries under exam as firms did not replace their own resources with public grants. However, these firms did not allocate additional funds to research and hence, differently from earlier works, we do not find evidence for additionality effects of R&D subsidies. Our estimates indicate that, albeit not expansive, public subsidies to R&D thwarted the reduction of firm R&D efforts in the aftermath of economic crisis.     

Financing R&D in mature companies: An empirical analysis

We study financing patterns of publicly traded R&D-intensive manufacturing firms in Israel. We further characterize R&D-intensive firms by size, physical capital intensity, and whether they issued stocks in the United States, asking whether these features are associated with particular financing patterns. To address these issues, we present, for the first time, adjusted flow of funds charts that treat R&D expenses as a capital outlay (rather than an operating cost that reduces profits, as standard accounting principles prescribe). We also address the question of how R&D inputs should be measured - using R&D expenses or R&D personnel. We construct both expenditure- and personnel-based R&D measures for each firm in our sample, and investigate to what extent these measures are mutually consistent.     

The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D*

This paper attempts to quantify the aggregate net effect of government funding on business R&D in 17 OECD Member countries over the past two decades. Grants, procurement, tax incentives and direct performance of research (in public laboratories or universities) are the major policy tools in the field. The major results of the study are the following: Direct government funding of R&D performed by firms has a positive effect on business financed R&D (except if the funding is targeted towards defence activities). Tax incentives have an immediate and positive effect on business-financed R&D; Direct funding as well as tax incentives are more effective when they are stable over time: firms do not invest in additional R&D if they are uncertain of the durability of the government support; Direct government funding and R&D tax incentives are substitutes: increased intensity of one reduces the effect of the other on business R&D; The stimulating effect of government funding varies with respect to its generosity: it increases up to a certain threshold (about 10% of business R&D) and then decreases beyond; Defence research performed in public laboratories and universities crowds out private R&D; Civilian public research is neutral for business R&D. * We thank the participants to various seminars, including the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technology Policy and the NBER 2000 Summer Institute on Productivity for helpful comments and suggestions. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect necessarily the views of the OECD or Université Libre de Bruxelles.     

Productivity and R&D sources: evidence for Catalan firms

This paper draws on a sample of innovative Catalan firms to identify how two main sources of innovation – internal R&D and external R&D acquisition – affect productivity in the manufacturing and service industries. The sample comprises 1612 innovative firms from the fourth European Community Innovation Survey (CIS-4) during the period 2002–2004. We compare empirical results when applying the usual OLS and quantile regression techniques controlling with a non-parametric sample selection. Our results indicate the different patterns that are attributable to the two sources of innovation as we move up from lower to higher conditional quantiles. First, the marginal effect of internal R&D on productivity decreased as we moved up to higher productivity levels. Second, the marginal effect of external R&D acquisition increased as we moved up to higher productivity levels. Finally, empirical results show significant complementarities between internal and external R&D, which are higher for knowledge-intensive service sectors.     

R&D policy in a vertically related industry

In this paper, we analyze the effectiveness of public policy aimed to stimulate business-performed R&D in a vertically related market. We examine the role of an R&D active upstream supplier in a four-stage R&D model, where we incorporate public funding. The considered policy instrument is direct funding of firms’ R&D efforts. We calculate the optimal policies and show that they have a positive impact on firms’ R&D investments. From a welfare point of view, it is optimal to differentiate the subsidy rates between the upstream and the downstream markets. Competition in the product market leads to a higher subsidy rate to the upstream supplier than to the downstream firms. When concentration is high in the downstream market, the optimal solution is an R&D subsidy for these firms, otherwise the optimal solution is an R&D tax for the downstream firms.     

A matching analysis of why some firms in peripheral regions undertake R&D whereas others do not

Many studies have established the importance of investment in R&D to facilitate innovation and consequently improve firm productivity. Firms decide whether or not to undertake R&D depending on a range of factors such as market orientation, business objectives, competitive advantages and absorptive capacity. This paper studies the factors that influence this decision in peripheral locations; and for firms that do not undertake R&D, we analyse the reasons for not doing so. The research is based on data from a survey of some 250 matched firms operating in Northern Ireland, about half undertaking R&D and half not. Northern Ireland is an interesting case study because it exhibits a low level of investment in R&D despite the public subsidies and policy initiatives that have existed over the last 30 years. For firms that undertake R&D, our results mostly confirm the findings of others while for firms that do not undertake R&D the results point to a capabilities-gap rather than a resource-gap as the fundamental problem. Policy conclusions are drawn as to what might be done to boost both the amount of R&D undertaken and the number of firms engaged in R&D in peripheral regions.     

Matthew effect,capabilities and innovation policy: the Argentinean case

The purpose of this paper is to test the presence of Matthew effects in different types of public funding for innovation – non-refundable grants, subsidized loans and tax credits. According to the literature, Matthew effect refers to the impact of past accessing to public funds on reputation, which increases the probability of accessing in the present. The dataset is made of 966 firms that accessed the Technological Argentinean Fund (FONTAR), main instrument to foster innovation in Argentina, during 2007–2013 – 3300 observations. Results confirm the existence of Matthew effects: past accessing to FONTAR increases the probability of accessing in the present, but only when different instruments are taken altogether. Then, Matthew effect is positively associated with the diversification of access to promotional instruments rather than the repeated access to one type of funding tool. Additionally, results show that firm’s innovation investments, R&D activities, and human resources, explain the increase in probability of accessing, which provides evidence regarding the presence of capability effects. All of this suggests that once the firm enters the system of public funding, it remains with an active innovative behaviour, not just because of reputation effects, but because it has accumulated capabilities in the pursuit of a technological advantage.     

Innovation and productivity in family firms: evidence from a sample of European firms

ABSTRACT

Using firm-level data, we estimate the returns to R&D investments for a sample of European manufacturing firms over the period 2007–2009. Results confirm that R&D efforts are positively related to productivity regardless of firm type (family or nonfamily firms). Additionally, we find that family firms invested more in R&D than nonfamily firms, but the returns to their R&D investments are low, emphasizing that they have a lower capacity to translate R&D investments into economic gains.     

A computational analysis of R&D support programs

We compare two common government R&D support programs, R&D tax credits and direct R&D grants. To study their effectiveness and the extent to which their design matters, we analyze these programs within a dynamic equilibrium model of imperfectly competitive industries. Adopting comprehensive welfare measures that take into account government, producer and consumer surpluses, we find that both schemes exhibit positive social returns. Mid-range R&D-intensive sectors exhibit higher social returns than either high or low R&D-intensive sectors. Both incentive schemes generate positive measures of R&D input additionality of magnitudes consistent with empirical R&D research. However, R&D grants that require firms to allocate subsidy funds to R&D spur less R&D than a more flexible R&D tax credit. Subsidy schemes can even induce competing firms to over-spend on R&D, generating negative producer surplus and possibly negative social returns.     

ASYMMETRIC EFFECTS OF THE BUSINESS CYCLE ON FIRM-FINANCED R&D

Abstract

Business cycles might affect the ability of firms to finance R&D, since firms rely on cash flow to finance most R&D activities. However, business cycles also influence the incentive to perform R&D. The opportunity cost of funds devoted to R&D falls during recessions, since the return on production will likely be lower than during an expansion. During recessions, this provides firms with an incentive to redistribute an existing pool of funds away from production and towards R&D projects. The changes in the size and distribution of the pool may also be asymmetric across the business cycle. For example, cash-flow constraints are more likely to bind during recessions than expansions. This paper finds strong evidence for the cash-flow effect, but not the opportunity-cost effect. This means that R&D is pro-cyclical, but smoothing out the business cycle will actually lead to reduced R&D, since the duration of expansions exceeds the duration of recessions.     

The impact of R&D programme success on the decision to capitalise development expenditures in European firms

The financial reporting treatment of R&D expenditures can have important implications for firms’ strategic investment in R&D. Yet, financial reporting issues have been largely neglected in the R&D management literature. In this study, we first hypothesise that firms’ capitalisation of development expenditures subsequent to the mandatory adoption of IAS 38 (International Accounting Standard 38: Intangible Assets) is positively and significantly impacted by a measure of R&D programme success. Our empirical findings – based on a pan-European sample of firms – reveal strong support for this prediction. Our findings also offer support for our second hypothesis which predicts that capitalisation of development expenditures in conjunction with an evaluation of R&D programme success has a positive and significant impact on growth in shareholder value. Consequently, our work suggests that an important challenge for R&D professionals within firms is to develop improved measures of R&D success and to communicate this information to senior executives.     

R&D,export and investment decision: evidence from European firms

This article provides an empirical investigation of the mechanism through which R&D influences export and tangible investment decisions. The analysis is based on a large representative and cross-country comparative sample of manufacturing firms across seven European countries. The novelty of this work lies in the three aspects. First, we expand the results on the R&D–export and R&D–investment relationships to a wide sample of cross-European firms. This differentiates from previous works based on single-country samples. Second, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first in years which assess empirically the relationship between R&D and tangible investment at the micro level. Third, we control for endogeneity of R&D and simultaneity in firms’ decision whether to export and carry out tangible investment. The results of the analysis suggest that R&D positively affects export propensity and tangible investment. The results also reveal that neglecting endogeneity and simultaneity issues leads to underestimate the effect of R&D to both export and investment propensities.     

How do housing cycles influence listed firms’ R&D investment: evidence from the collateral channel

ABSTRACT

Firm innovation is essential to long-run economic growth. Financially constrained R&D firms may use firm-owned properties as collateral to finance their R&D projects. Therefore, the housing price cycle can affect firms’ R&D investment through influencing their real estate value. By examining listed R&D firms during the housing boom period 2002–2006 in the U.S., we find that a $1 increase in real estate value leads a firm to increase its R&D investment by $0.38. We also find that this collateral effect is more pronounced among financially constrained R&D firms than that among unconstrained ones. Additionally, we examine the housing bust period 2008–2012, and find that real estate depreciation retarded R&D investment, especially among constrained R&D firms.     

Does R&D spending boost tangible investment? An analysis on European firms

This article investigates the relationship between firm’s R&D intensity, expressed as R&D expenditure over sales, and investment intensity in tangible assets. It is commonly acknowledged that R&D requires additional physical investment to be implemented. R&D increases a firm’s productivity and return to tangible investments, thus, providing to the firm incentives to bear high tangible capital costs and to invest more. This represents a crucial issue for a firm’s growth, particularly considering the strong interaction between physical capital accumulation and technological progress. The analysis is based on a large sample of manufacturing firms across seven European countries in the period 2007–2009. Since the sub-sample of firms performing R&D might not be random, there may potentially be an endogeneity issue. The analysis also considers that firms may decide to spend on R&D and investment in physical capital simultaneously. The questions of both endogeneity and simultaneity are dealt with by employing an instrumental variable two-step procedure. We find a positive and significant impact of R&D intensity on firms’ tangible investment intensity. The econometric results highlight the importance of financial factors, particularly with respect to firms’ internal resources. Exposure to international trade has a negative impact on investment, possibly depending on the time-span of the sample used.

Abbreviations: Technological Innovation and R&D; Investment Capital; Industry Studies; Firm Behavior; Empirical Analysis     

Regional economic divide and the role of technological spillovers in Italy. Evidence from microdata

This paper assesses the impact of Research and Development (R&D) efforts on production in the North and Centre-South of Italy by using a panel of 1,203 manufacturing firms over the period 1998–2003. The estimations are based on a nonlinear translog production function augmented by a measure of R&D spillovers. This measure combines the geographical distance between firms, the technological similarity within each pair of firms and the technical efficiency of each firm. The estimation method takes into account the endogeneity of regressors and the potential sample selection issue regarding firms’ decisions to invest in R&D. The two main results are as follows. Internal and external R&D have a lower impact in the Centre-South of Italy than in the rest of the country and they are weak substitutes whatever the area.