Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The longer term effects of federal subsidies on firm survival: evidence from the advanced technology program

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to conduct a survival analysis to determine the causal impact of federal R&D subsidies on firms’ long-term survival. The data are small firms which applied to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) in 1998 and 2000. The ATP’s focus was on ensuring that early stage, high-risk research was eventually commercialized successfully and resulted in broad economic benefits for society overall. This paper therefore explores whether the knowledge and benefits the ATP initially provided to a firm allowed it to more successfully transition future research projects from development and testing to commercialization. This paper utilizes a variant of the Heckman (Econometrica 47(1):153–161, 1979) research design to control for inherent pre-award differences between awarded and non-awarded firms. By using administrative data on reviewer scores, this analysis shows that the impact of ATP on small firm survival is robust to sample selection. This paper’s findings suggest that recei ving an ATP award can have a significant and positive causal effect on firm survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldieri, L., & Cincera, M. (2009). Geographic and technological R&D spillovers within the triad: Micro evidence from U.S. patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 196–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Leyden, D., & Link, A. (2012). Universities as research partners in publicly supported entrepreneurial firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(5–6), 529–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Link, A., & Scott, J. (2002). Public/private partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31(1), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Graff-Zivin, J., Li, D., & Sampat, B. (2014). Public R&D Investments and Private Sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules. Kellogg School of Management. Retrieved from http://economics-eng.huji.ac.il/Uploads/Contents/documents/Pierre_Azoulayy.pdf.

  • Balutis, A., & Lambis, B. (2001). The ATP Competition Structure. In C. Wessner (Ed.), The advanced technology program: Assessing outcomes (pp. 175–188). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becchetti, L., & Trovato, G. (2002). The determinants of growth for small and medium sized firms: The role of the availability of external finance. Small Business Economics, 19(4), 291–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanes, J., & Busom, I. (2004). Who participates in R&D subsidy programs? The case of Spanish manufacturing firms. Regional Policy, 33(10), 1459–1476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Hardin, J., & Link, A. (2008). Barriers to the diffusion of nanotechnology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7–8), 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1167–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleves, M., Gould, W., & Gutierrez, R. (2004). An introduction to survival analysis using stata (Revised ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M., Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Dynamics of science-based entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J., & Link, A. (2015). Fostering university-industry collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitziki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fieri, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies, and R&D performance: Evidence from Germany and Finland. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7), 1347–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hanel, P., & Rosa, J. (2011). Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation: A micro-econometric study on Canadian firms. Research Policy, 40(2), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Hall, B., & Toole, A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or a substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 497–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D., & Decarolis, M. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 953–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dublin Institute of Technology. (2017). Topics and themes: T2S2015. Retrieved from http://www.t2s2015.com/page/9/topics-and-themes/.

  • Dyer, J. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einio, E. (2014). R&D subsidies and company performance: Evidence from the geographic variation in government funding based on the ERDF population-density rule. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(4), 710–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteve-Perez, S., & Manez-Castillejo, J. (2008). The resource-based theory of the firm and firm survival. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. (1994). The university and economic development: The case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(1), 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Kelley, M. (2003). Leveraging research and development: Assessing the impact of the U.S. Advanced Technology Program. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Kelley, M. (2006). The Ex Ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: Government R&D policy, economic incentives, and private firm behavior. Research Policy, 35(10), 1509–1521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., & Link, A. (2015). Technology-based state growth policies: The case of North Carolina’s green business fund. Annals of Regional Science, 54(2), 437–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., Link, A., & Scott, J. (2003). Universities as research partners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., & Maffioli, A. (2008). Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: Evidence from Latin America. The European Journal of Development Research, 20(2), 172–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, P., & St Pierre, M. (2006). Industry-university collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, P., Hunt, A., & Stone, I. (2010). An analysis of new firm survival using a hazard function. Applied Economics, 42(2), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussinger, K. (2008). R&D and subsidies at the firm level: An application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(6), 729–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hytinnen, A., & Toivanen, O. (2005). Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth?: Evidence on the role of public policy. Research Policy, 34(9), 1385–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, N., Hascic, I., & Popp, D. (2010). Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: Evidence based on patent counts. Environmental & Resource Economics, 45(1), 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (2002). Firm survival and the evolution of oligopoly. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(1), 37–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klette, T., Møen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric Evaluation Studies. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 471–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Persaud, A. (1999). Building technological capability through importing technology: The case of Indonesian manufacturing industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(1), 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (2000). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. The Journal of Private Equity, 3(2), 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. (2016). Public sector entrepreneurship and the creation of a sustainable innovative economy. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D., & Link, A. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. (2015). Capturing knowledge: Private gains and public gains from university research partnerships. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 139–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. (2016). Public sector entrepreneurship: Introduction to the special section. Economica e Politica Industriale, 43(3), 355–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Rees, J. (1990). Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics, 2(1), 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Scott, J. (2005). Universities as research partners in U.S. joint research ventures. Research Policy, 34(3), 385–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loof, H., & Brostrom, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. (1997). The learning region: Institutions, innovation, and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), 479–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musso, P., & Schiavo, S. (2008). The impact of financial constraints on firm survival and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Health. (2015). What are SBIR and STTR programs?. Retrieved from https://sbir.nih.gov/.

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (1998). Advanced Technology Program proposal preparation kit. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2004). ATP Proposal Preparation Kit. Retrieved from http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/kit-04/final-kit.pdf.

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005). Survey of ATP Applicants 2000: Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/applicants/intro.htm.

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2007). America COMPETES Act Brings Immediate Changes to NIST. Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2007/08/america-competes-act-brings-immediate-changes-nist.

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). Technology Innovation Program. Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/technology-innovation-program.

  • National Institutes of Health. (2016). What is SBIR and STTR?. Retrieved from https://sbir.nih.gov/about/what-is-sbir-sttr.

  • National Research Council. (2001). The Advanced Technology Program: Assessing outcomes. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, J., & Okamuro, H. (2010). R&D productivity and the organization of cluster policy: An empirical evaluation of the industrial cluster project in Japan. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puhani, P. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A., Audretsch, D., & Aldridge, T. (2016). Motivating entrepreneurship and innovative activity: Analyzing U.S. policies and programs. In D. Audretsch & A. Link (Eds.), Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachwald, F. (2008). Location choices within global innovation networks: The case of Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4), 364–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Review, 50(2), 364–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrank, A., & Whitford, J. (2011). The anatomy of network failure. Sociological Theory, 29(3), 151–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J., & Wallsten, S. (1999). Public-private technology partnerships: Promises and pitfalls. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takalmo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 16–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). 2016 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit. Retrieved from https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=events/2016-arpa-e-energy-innovation-summit.

  • U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). ATP fiscal year 1998 competition results. Retrieved from http://www.atp.nist.gov/comps/index98.htm.

  • U.S. Department of Energy. ta (n.d.). ARPA-E: General questions. Retrieved from https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=faq/general-questions.

  • U.S. Small Business Administration. (n.d.). About SBIR. Retrieved from https://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir.

  • U.S. Small Business Administration. (2014). Summary of size standards by industry sector. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/content/summary-size-standards-industry-sector.

  • Wagner, J. (2002). The causal effects of exports on firm size and labor productivity: First evidence from a matching approach. Economics Letters, 77(2), 287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the small business innovation research program. RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, W. (2014). GAO pushes better reporting of federal grants data. Information Week.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Daniel Smith

  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Daniel Smith & Maryann Feldman

  3. National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA, USA

    Gary Anderson

Authors
  1. Daniel Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maryann Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, D., Feldman, M. & Anderson, G. The longer term effects of federal subsidies on firm survival: evidence from the advanced technology program. J Technol Transf 43, 593–614 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9633-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9633-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation