Small Business Economics

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 207–227 | Cite as

Absorptive capacity and R&D tax policy: Are in-house and external contract R&D substitutes or complements?

Article

Abstract

Firms fund research and development (R&D) to generate commercializable innovations and to increase their ability to understand and absorb knowledge from elsewhere. This dual role and opposed incentive structure of internal R&D create a significant question for both theory and R&D policy: Is internal R&D a complement or substitute for external R&D? We develop a model and novel technique for empirically estimating R&D substitution elasticities. We focus on bio-pharmaceutical and software industries in California and Massachusetts, where tax credit rates changed differently over time for the two types of R&D, creating a natural experiment. The effective tax prices for the two R&D types differ from type to type, firm to firm, state to state, and year to year. This allows us to examine changes in the composition of firms’ R&D budgets between in-house R&D and external basic research when the relative tax prices of each category of research change. We find evidence of a substitute relationship both for a sample comprising exclusively small firms as well as for a more general distribution of firm sizes.

Keywords

R&D Absorptive capacity Tax credit R&D substitution Technology policy 

JEL Classifications

O31 O38 L26 L65 L86 

References

  1. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 24(1), 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berndt, E. R. (1991). The practice of econometrics: Classic and contemporary. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, W. M., & Leventhal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commerce Clearing House (CCH) (2000–2003). http://www.tax.cch.com/primesrc/bin/highwire.dll
  9. David, P., Hall, B., & Toole, P. (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
  10. Diewert, W. E. (1971). An application of the Shephard duality theorem: A generalized Leontief production function. The Journal of Political Economy, 79(3), 481–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric Analysis (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity, R and D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. The American Economic Review, 76(1), 141–54.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, B., & Wosinska, M. (1999). Effectiveness of the California R&D tax credit. Sacramento: California Council on Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  15. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hines, J. R. (1991). On the sensitivity of R&D to delicate tax changes: The behavior of U.S. multinationals in the 1980s. Working paper 3930. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Hines, J. R. (1993). No place like home: Tax incentives and the location of R&D by American multinationals. Working paper 4574. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Humphrey, D., & Moroney, J. (1975). Substitution among capital, labor, and natural resource products in American manufacturing. Journal of Political Economy, 83(1), 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaffe, A. B. (1996). Economic analysis of research spillovers: Implications for the advanced technology program. NIST grant/contract report 97–708. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg.Google Scholar
  20. Kmenta, J. (1967). On estimation of the CES production function. International Economic Review, 8(2), 180–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. KPMG International. 1997–1999. Corporate tax rate surveys. http://www.in.kpmg.com
  22. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M., (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 417–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increases in manufacturing. The American Economic Review, 70(5), 863–73.Google Scholar
  24. Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 67–94.Google Scholar
  25. National Science Foundation (2000). Division of science resources studies. In Research and Development in Industry: 1998. NSF 01—305. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  26. National Science Foundation (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003). Surveys of industrial research and development. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/industry/
  27. Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicholls-Nixon, C. (1993). Absorptive capacity and technological sourcing: Implications for the responsiveness of established firms. Purdue University Dissertation. West Lafayette.Google Scholar
  29. Paff, L. (2004). Does the alternate incremental credit affect firm R&D? Technovation, 24, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paff, L. (2002). The effectiveness of state-level R&D tax credits: An evaluation based on 10-K and Compustat data. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Dissertation.Google Scholar
  31. Paff, L., & Watkins, T. A. (2006). What is the after-tax price of R&D? An inter-state comparison based on R&D tax credits, corporate tax rates, and income apportionment, using firm-level data. Eastern Economic Association annual conference. Philadelphia, February 24–26.Google Scholar
  32. Pavitt, K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 761–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19(2), 165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santoro, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7), 1163–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Securities and Exchange Commission. (1999). EDGAR database. http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
  38. Solow, R. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economic Statistics, 39(3), 312–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steele, L. (1989). Managing technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Tassey, G. (1997). The economics of R&D policy. Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  41. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Uzawa, H. (1964). Duality principles in the theory of cost and production. International Economic Review, 5(2), 216–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van den Bosch, F. A. J., van Wijk, R. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2003). External knowledge, absorptive capacity, and firm performance. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Companion to organisational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Watkins, T. A. (1991). A technological communications costs model of R&D consortia as public policy. Research Policy, 20(2), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seeming unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, College of Business and EconomicsLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA
  2. 2.Engineering, Business & Computing DivisionPenn State BerksReadingUSA

Personalised recommendations