The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 593–614 | Cite as

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

  • Daniel SmithEmail author
  • Maryann Feldman
  • Gary Anderson


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.


Federal R&D Subsidies Firm Survival Innovation 

JEL Classification

H2 O3 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D., Link, A., & Scott, J. (2002). Public/private partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31(1), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bozeman, B., Hardin, J., & Link, A. (2008). Barriers to the diffusion of nanotechnology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7–8), 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1167–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesbrough, W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cleves, M., Gould, W., & Gutierrez, R. (2004). An introduction to survival analysis using stata (Revised ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  16. Colombo, M., Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Dynamics of science-based entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham, J., & Link, A. (2015). Fostering university-industry collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dublin Institute of Technology. (2017). Topics and themes: T2S2015. Retrieved from
  23. Dyer, J. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Esteve-Perez, S., & Manez-Castillejo, J. (2008). The resource-based theory of the firm and firm survival. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldman, M. (1994). The university and economic development: The case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, B., Link, A., & Scott, J. (2003). Universities as research partners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanel, P., & St Pierre, M. (2006). Industry-university collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmes, P., Hunt, A., & Stone, I. (2010). An analysis of new firm survival using a hazard function. Applied Economics, 42(2), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klepper, S. (2002). Firm survival and the evolution of oligopoly. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leyden, D. (2016). Public sector entrepreneurship and the creation of a sustainable innovative economy. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leyden, D., & Link, A. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Link, A. (2015). Capturing knowledge: Private gains and public gains from university research partnerships. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 139–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Link, A. (2016). Public sector entrepreneurship: Introduction to the special section. Economica e Politica Industriale, 43(3), 355–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Link, A., & Rees, J. (1990). Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics, 2(1), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Link, A., & Scott, J. (2005). Universities as research partners in U.S. joint research ventures. Research Policy, 34(3), 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loof, H., & Brostrom, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morgan, K. (1997). The learning region: Institutions, innovation, and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morgan, S., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Musso, P., & Schiavo, S. (2008). The impact of financial constraints on firm survival and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. National Institute of Health. (2015). What are SBIR and STTR programs?. Retrieved from
  58. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (1998). Advanced Technology Program proposal preparation kit. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  59. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2004). ATP Proposal Preparation Kit. Retrieved from
  60. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005). Survey of ATP Applicants 2000: Introduction. Retrieved from
  61. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2007). America COMPETES Act Brings Immediate Changes to NIST. Retrieved from
  62. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). Technology Innovation Program. Retrieved from
  63. National Institutes of Health. (2016). What is SBIR and STTR?. Retrieved from
  64. National Research Council. (2001). The Advanced Technology Program: Assessing outcomes. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Puhani, P. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Sachwald, F. (2008). Location choices within global innovation networks: The case of Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4), 364–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Schrank, A., & Whitford, J. (2011). The anatomy of network failure. Sociological Theory, 29(3), 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  74. Stiglitz, J., & Wallsten, S. (1999). Public-private technology partnerships: Promises and pitfalls. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). 2016 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit. Retrieved from
  78. U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). ATP fiscal year 1998 competition results. Retrieved from
  79. U.S. Department of Energy. ta (n.d.). ARPA-E: General questions. Retrieved from
  80. U.S. Small Business Administration. (n.d.). About SBIR. Retrieved from
  81. U.S. Small Business Administration. (2014). Summary of size standards by industry sector. Retrieved from
  82. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Welsh, W. (2014). GAO pushes better reporting of federal grants data. Information Week.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North Carolina Department of CommerceRaleighUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.National Science FoundationAlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations