Advertisement

Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 300–329 | Cite as

Public R&D under different electoral rules: evidence from OECD countries

  • Pijus KrūminasEmail author
Original Paper
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Despite research on R&D and innovation policies, the effect of constitutional rules in this area has not received adequate attention yet. The paper contributes to filling this research gap by proposing that electoral systems affect governments’ decisions regarding R&D spending. It is expected that investment in R&D is closer to a bounded public good than to transfer payment. Therefore, governments in countries with majoritarian electoral rules should be willing to use this instrument to influence election outcomes. Both the amount invested and structure of funding is expected to depend on whether a government is elected via proportional or majoritarian rules. The analysis covers 25 OECD countries between 1981 and 2014, and relies on panel data analysis. The findings suggest that governments elected under majoritarian rules project higher government budget appropriations or outlays for research and development (GBAORD) than governments elected under proportional rules. Furthermore, GBAORD is more fragmented thematically in countries with proportional electoral rules.

Keywords

Research and development Innovation GBAORD Electoral systems 

JEL Classification

H41 O38 P16 P48 

Notes

References

  1. Abrams, B. A., & Dougan, W. R. (1986). The effects of constitutional restraints on governmental spending. Public Choice, 49(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
  2. Armingeon, K., Wenger, V., Wiedemeier, F., Isler, C., Knöpfel, L., Weisstanner, D., et al. (2018). Comparative political data set 1960–2016. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 18–29.Google Scholar
  5. Azariadis, C., & Galasso, V. (1998). Constitutional “Rules” and Intergenerational Fiscal Policy. Constitutional Political Economy, 9(1), 67–74.Google Scholar
  6. Batinti, A., & Congleton, R. D. (2018). On the codetermination of tax-financed medical R&D and healthcare expenditures: Models and evidence. European Journal of Political Economy, 54, 175–188.Google Scholar
  7. Boix, C. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 609–624.Google Scholar
  8. Breunig, C., & Busemeyer, M. R. (2012). Fiscal austerity and the trade-off between public investment and social spending. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(6), 921–938.Google Scholar
  9. Camyar, I., & Ulupinar, B. (2019). Electoral systems and the economy: A firm-level analysis. Constitutional Political Economy, 30(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39(6), 679–708.Google Scholar
  11. Congleton, R. D. (2018). Intellectual foundations of public choice, the forest from the trees. Public Choice, 175(3–4), 229–244.Google Scholar
  12. Congleton, R. D., & Swedenborg, B. (Eds.). (2006). Democratic constitutional design and public policy, analysis and evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cusack, T. R., Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2007). Economic interests and the origins of electoral systems. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 373–391.Google Scholar
  14. Czarnitzki, D., & Licht, G. (2006). Additionality of public R&D grants in a transition economy. Economics of Transition, 14(1), 101–131.Google Scholar
  15. David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4), 497–529.Google Scholar
  16. Eurostat. (2008). Government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D—GBAORD. Statistics in focus 29/2008. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3433488/5581836/KS-SF-08-029-EN.PDF/6943d52d-8b95-4016-a3d9-512b6181370e?version=1.0.
  17. Eurostat. (2012). Synthesis of National Quality Reports for 2009 R&D and GBAORD statistics. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/Annexes/rd_esms_an2.pdf.
  18. Giannopapa, C. (2015). The Space sector economy and space programmes world wide. In Handbook of space security: Policies, applications and programs (pp. 999–1021). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Gonzalez-Eiras, M., & Prado, M. (2007). Determinants of Capital Intensive and R&D Intensive Foreign Direct Investment. SSRN 986561.Google Scholar
  20. Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004). From R&D to productivity growth: Do the institutional settings and the source of funds of R&D matter? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 353–378.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, 1, 50–51.Google Scholar
  22. Huo, J. (2015). How nations innovate: The political economy of technological innovation in affluent capitalist economies. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  23. Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2006). Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review, 100(02), 165–181.Google Scholar
  24. Johnstone, N., Haščič, I., and Watson, F. (2011). Invention and Transfer of Environmental Technologies. Annex A. Methodological Issues in the Development of Indicators of Innovation and Transfer in Environmental Technologies. OECD.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, J. (2011). Political institutions and public R&D expenditures in democratic countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(13), 843–857.Google Scholar
  26. Knutsen, C. H. (2011). Which democracies prosper? Electoral rules, form of government and economic growth. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 83–90.Google Scholar
  27. Krūminas, P. (2017). Innovation policy and economic development in peripheral regions in the context of electoral institutions. Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, 9(1), 48–71.Google Scholar
  28. Lizzeri, A., & Persico, N. (2001). The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives. American Economic Review, 91(1), 225–239.Google Scholar
  29. Makkonen, T. (2013). Government science and technology budgets in times of crisis. Research Policy, 42(3), 817–822.Google Scholar
  30. Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., & Wagner, S. (1981). Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. The Economic Journal, 91(364), 907–918.Google Scholar
  31. Martí Sempere, C. (2018). What is known about defence research and development spill-overs? Defence and Peace Economics, 29(3), 225–246.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, B. R. (2016). R&D policy instruments–a critical review of what we do and don’t know. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 157–176.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, C. W., & Steiner, N. D. (2016). Economic globalization and the change of electoral rules. Constitutional Political Economy, 27(4), 355–376.Google Scholar
  34. Milesi-Ferretti, G. M., Perotti, R., & Rostagno, M. (2002). Electoral systems and public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 609–657.Google Scholar
  35. Norris, P. (1997). Choosing electoral systems: Proportional, majoritarian and mixed systems. International Political Science Review, 18(3), 297–312.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Persson, T., Roland, G., & Tabellini, G. (2007). Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 155–188.Google Scholar
  38. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (1999). The size and scope of government: Comparative politics with rational politicians. European Economic Review, 43(4–6), 699–735.Google Scholar
  39. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. E. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutions and economic policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 75–98.Google Scholar
  41. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. E. (2005). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  42. Pohulak-Żołędowska, E., & Żabiński, A. (2015). The state’s role in creating innovation-driven economic growth. Studia Ekonomiczne, 214, 201–215.Google Scholar
  43. Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  44. Scully, G. W. (2014). Constitutional environments and economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Verardi, V. (2005). Electoral systems and income inequality. Economics Letters, 86(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  46. Voigt, S. (2011). Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments. Public Choice, 146(1–2), 205–256.Google Scholar
  47. Wensink, W. and de Vet, J. M. (2013). Identifying and Reducing Corruption in Public Procurement in the EU: Development of a methodology to estimate the direct costs of corruption and other elements for an EU-evaluation mechanism in the area of anti-corruption. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/antifraud/files/docs/body/identifying_reducing_corruption_in_public_procurement_en.pdf.
  48. Zúñiga-Vicente, J. Á., Alonso-Borrego, C., Forcadell, F. J., & Galán, J. I. (2014). Assessing the effect of public subsidies on firm R&D investment: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(1), 36–67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISM University of Management and EconomicsVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations