R&D tax incentives: a reappraisal



This paper examines R&D tax incentives in oligopolistic markets. We characterize the conditions under which tax incentives reach the socially desirable level of firm-financed R&D spending. The outcome of the market depends not only on the level of technological spillover in the industry but also on the degree of strategic interaction between the firms. One major result emerges from the model: The socially desirable level of R&D investment is not necessarily reached by subsidizing R&D. When the technological spillover is sufficiently low, the government might want to tax R&D investments, and this result does not necessarily arise because firms are overinvesting in R&D. There are also cases in which an R&D tax is desirable even though firms are underinvesting in R&D compared with the first-best optimum. In practice, this theoretical finding calls for a lower sales tax combined with an R&D subsidy in oligopolistic industries with high technological spillovers, and a lower sales tax combined with an R&D tax in oligopolistic industries with low technological spillovers.


Oligopoly Public policy R&D tax incentive Spillover Strategic interaction 

JEL Classification

H25 L13 O13 O38 


  1. Amir, R., & Wooders, J. (1999). Effects of one-way spillovers on market shares, industry price, welfare, and R&D cooperation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 8, 223–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amir, R., & Wooders, J. (2000). One-way spillovers, endogenous innovator/imitator roles, and research joint ventures. Games and Economic Behavior, 31, 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amir, R., Evstigneev, I., & Wooders, J. (2003). Noncooperative versus cooperative R&D with endogenous spillover rates. Games and Economic Behavior, 2, 183–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and allocations of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors. National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Atallah, G. (2005). R&D cooperation with asymmetric spillovers. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38, 919–936. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atallah, G. (2007). Research joint ventures with asymmetric spillovers and symmetric contributions. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 559–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. d’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78, 1133–1138. Google Scholar
  8. David, P., Hall, B., & Toole, A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29, 497–529. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Bondt, R., & Henriques, I. (1995). Strategic investment with asymmetric spillovers. Canadian Journal of Economics, 28, 656–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devereux, M., & Griffith, R. (1998). Taxes and the location of production: evidence from a panel of US multinationals. Journal of Public Economics, 68, 335–367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devereux, M., & Griffith, R. (2003). Evaluating tax policy for location decisions. International Tax and Public Finance, 10, 107–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixit, A., & Stiglitz, J. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 67, 297–308. Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (1995). Fourth survey on state aid in the European Union in the manufacturing and certain other sectors. Google Scholar
  14. Gersbach, H., & Schmutzler, A. (2003). Endogenous technological spillovers: causes and consequences. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12, 179–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, B. (1993). R&D tax policy during the 1980s: success or failure? Tax Policy and the Economy, 1–35. Google Scholar
  16. Hall, B. (1995). Effectiveness of research and experiment tax credits: critical literature review and research design. (Report for the Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress). Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  17. Hall, B., & Van Reenen, J. (2000). How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence. Research Policy, 29, 449–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henriques, I. (1990). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers: comment. American Economic Review, 80, 638–640. Google Scholar
  19. Inci, E. (2006). A model of R&D tax incentives (Boston College Working Paper no. 597). Google Scholar
  20. Kamien, M., Muller, E., & Zang, I. (1992). Research joint ventures and R&D cartels. American Economic Review, 82, 1293–1306. Google Scholar
  21. Katsoulacos, Y., & Ulph, D. (1998). Endogenous spillovers and the performance of research joint ventures. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 333–357. Google Scholar
  22. Klette, T., Moen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, 471–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lahiri, S., & Ono, Y. (1988). Helping minor firms reduces welfare. Economic Journal, 98, 1199–1202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambertini, L. (2003). The monopolist’s optimal R&D portfolio. Oxford Economic Papers, 55, 561–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambertini, L. (2004). Process and product R&D by a multiproduct monopolist: a reply to Lin. Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 745–749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambertini, L., & Orsini, R. (2000). Process and product innovation in a vertically differentiated monopoly. Economic Letters, 68, 333–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leahy, D., & Neary, J. (1997). Public policy towards R&D in oligopolistic industries. American Economic Review, 87, 642–662. Google Scholar
  28. Lin, P. (2004). Process and product R&D by a multiproduct monopolist. Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 735–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin, P., & Saggi, K. (2002). Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition. European Economic Review, 46, 201–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piga, C., & Poyago-Theotoky, J. (2005). Endogenous spillovers and locational choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 127–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Romer, P. (1990). Are nonconvexities important for understanding growth? American Economic Review, 80, 97–103. Google Scholar
  32. Symeonidis, G. (2003). Comparing Bertrand and Cournot equilibria in a differentiated duopoly with product R&D. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 39–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations