Abstract
This article evaluates a small-business program implemented in an Italian region, Tuscany, providing small and medium-sized firms with R&D subsidies. To establish whether the subsidy has encouraged non-transitory R&D, enhanced the propensity to intellectual property protection and to collaborative R&D with other firms or research centers, or improved firm performance in general, we estimate a number of potential input, output and behavioral effects that the program might have induced shortly after the completion of the subsidized project. In order to do so, we perform a careful application of matching techniques, using a wide set of pre-subsidy characteristics. We find that the program has been ineffective with respect to the innovation and commercial outputs of small and medium-sized firms, but has encouraged a non-transitory practice of R&D by former non-R&D-performers and contributed to firm upskilling, which may be seen as prerequisites for the creation or the consolidation of absorptive capacity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This corresponds to a time range of 1–1.5 years after the subsidized project was closed out, when the subsidy could no longer be part of the firm’s R&D investment (if any). As will be explained in Sect. 4, we expunged from the analysis all firms that took more than one subsidy throughout the period in question. It is true that the timing of project outcomes can differ across industries, depending on the technologies employed, and so on. Of course, it could be interesting to explore all timings of effects, but such a comprehensive analysis is beyond the scope of our paper and is infeasible with the available data.
The full population of 120 beneficiaries was interviewed, also thanks to a written invitation by local authorities administering R&D programs we could send to firms accompanying our request. Therefore we have no problems of non-response and, thus, of representativeness for ATT estimation purposes.
Variability estimation occurred using the analytic asymptotic variance estimator by Abadie and Imbens (2006), which focuses on cases, like ours, where matching occurs with replacement and with a fixed number of matches. This approach for estimating variability is incorporated in the bias-adjusted matching estimator later put forward by the same authors (Abadie and Imbens 2011). In the presence of ties, the bias-adjusted matching estimator takes all tied controls (Abadie et al. 2004).
Results are not reported here but are available upon request.
Detailed results of this analysis are available upon request to the authors. Table 6 in the “Appendix” shows that, as expected, the standard errors of the ATT estimates slightly decrease as the number of matches grows. This occurs at the cost—however—of inducing more bias in the ATT estimates.
Note that when the outcome is continuous the adjustment is carried out by means of a linear regression model; when the outcome is binary by means of a linear probability model.
References
Abadie A, Drukker D, Herr JL, Imbens GW (2004) Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata. Stata J 4(3):290–311
Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74(1):235–267. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x
Abadie A, Imbens GW (2011) Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat 29(1):1–11. doi:10.1198/jbes.2009.07333
Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (1990) Innovation and small firms. MIT Press, London
Almus M, Czarnitzki D (2003) The effects of public R&D activities on firm’s innovation: the case of Eastern Germany. J Bus Econ Stat 12(2):226–236. doi:10.1198/073500103288618918
Altman EI, Sabato G (2007) Modelling credit risk for SMEs: evidence from the US market. Abacus 43(3):332–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6281.2007.00234.x
Antonioli D, Marzucchi A, Montresor S (2014) Regional innovation policy and innovative behaviour: looking for additional effects. Eur Plan Stud 22(1):64–83. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.722977
Arpino B, Mattei A (2016) Assessing the causal effects of financial aids to firms in Tuscany allowing for interference. Ann Appl Stat 10(3):1170–1194. doi:10.1214/15-AOAS902
Arvanitis S, Donzé L, Sydow N (2010) Impact of Swiss technology policy on firm innovation performance: an evaluation based on a matching approach. Sci Public Policy 37(1):63–78. doi:10.3152/030234210x491623
Audretsch DB, Link AN, Scott JT (2002) Public/private technology partnerships: evaluating SBIR-supported research’. Res Policy 31(1):145–158. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00158-x
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 57(1):289–300. doi:10.2307/2346101
Bérubé C, Mohnen P (2009) Are firms that received R&D subsidies more innovative? Can J Econ 42(1):206–225. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.01505.x
Blanes JV, Busom I (2004) Who participates in R&D subsidy programs? The case of Spanish manufacturing firms. Res Policy 33(10):1459–1476. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.006
Bloom N, Van Reenen J (2010) New approaches to surveying organizations. Am Econ Rev 100(2):105–109. doi:10.1257/aer.100.2.105
Bocci C, Mariani M (2015) L’approccio delle funzioni dose-risposta per la valutazione di trattamenti continui nei sussidi alla R&S (The dose-response function approach for the evaluation of continuous treatments in R&D subsidies). Sci Reg 14(3):81–102. doi:10.3280/SCRE2015-S03005
Bozeman B (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Res Policy 29(4–5):627–655. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00093-1
Breschi S, Malerba F, Orsenigo L (2000) Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Econ J 110(463):388–410. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00530
Bronzini R, Iachini E (2014) Are incentives for R&D effective? Evidence from a regression discontinuity approach. Am Econ J 6(4):100–134. doi:10.1257/pol.6.4.100
Bronzini R, Piselli P (2016) The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Res Policy 45(2):442–457. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.008
Buisseret T, Cameron H, Georghiou L (1995) What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. Int J Technol Manage 10(4–5):587–600. doi:10.1504/IJTM.1995.025644
Busom I (2000) An empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies. Econ Innov New Technol 9(2):111–148. doi:10.1080/10438590000000006
Busom I, Fernandez-Ribas A (2008) The impact of firm participation in R&D programmes on R&D partnerships. Res Policy 37(2):240–257. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.002
Carpenter RE, Petersen BC (2002) Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing. Econ J 112(477):F54–F72. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00683
Caloffi A, Mariani M, Sterlacchini A (2016) Evaluating public supports to the investment activities of business firms: a meta-regression analysis of Italian studies. CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre Working Papers, N. 116
Cerqua A, Pellegrini G (2014) Do subsidies to private capital boost firms’ growth? A multiple regression discontinuity design approach. J Public Econ 109:114–126. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.005
Cerqua A, Pellegrini G (2017) Industrial policy evaluation in the presence of spillovers. Small Bus Econ. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9855-9
Cerulli G (2010) Modelling and measuring the effect of public subsidies to business R&D: a critical review of the econometric literature. Econ Rec 86(274):421–449. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4932.2009.00615.x
Cerulli G, Potì B (2012) Evaluating the robustness of the effect of public subsidies on firms’ R&D: an application to Italy. J Appl Econ 15(2):287–320. doi:10.1016/S1514-0326(12)60013-0
Clarysse B, Wright M, Musta P (2009) Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: a learning perspective. Res Policy 38(10):1517–1533. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.003
Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553
Copas JB, Li HG (1997) Inference for non-random samples (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 59(1):55–95. doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00055
Criscuolo C, Martin R, Overman H, Van Reenen J (2012) The causal effects of an industrial policy. NBER Working Papers no. 17842, National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w17842
Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA (2009) Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika 96(1):187–199. doi:10.1093/biomet/asn055
Czarnitzki D (2006) Research and development in small and medium-sized enterprises: the role of financial constraints and public funding. Scott J Political Econ 53(3):335–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9485.2006.00383.x
Czarnitzki D, Ebersberger B, Fier A (2007) The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and patenting activity: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. J Appl Econ 22(7):1347–1366. doi:10.1002/jae.992
Czarnitzki D, Hottenrott H (2011) R&D investment and financing constraints of small and medium-sized firms. Small Bus Econ 36(1):65–83. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9189-3
Czarnitzki D, Licht G (2006) Additionality of public R&D grants in a transition economy: the case of Eastern Germany. Econ Transit 14(1):101–131. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0351.2006.00236.x
Czarnitzki D, Lopes-Bento C (2013) Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders. Res Policy 42(1):76–89. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.008
David PA, Hall BH, Toole AA (2000) Is public R&D to complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the Econometric Evidence. Res Policy 29(4–5):497–529. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00087-6
Dehejia RH, Wahba S (1999) Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J Am Stat Assoc 95(448):1053–1062. doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10473858
Dehijia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84(1):151–161. doi:10.1162/003465302317331982
Gans JS, Stern S (2000) When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit? Evidence from the SBIR Program. Econ Innov New Technol 12(4):361–384. doi:10.1080/1043859022000014092
García-Quevedo J (2004) Do public subsidies complement business R&D? A meta-analysis of the econometric evidence. Kyklos 57(1):87–102. doi:10.1111/j.0023-5962.2004.00244.x
Gök A, Edler J (2012) The use of behavioural additionality evaluation in innovation policy making. Res Eval 21(4):306–318. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs015
González X, Jaumandreu J, Pazó C (2005) Barriers to innovation and subsidy effectiveness. Rand J Econ 36(4):930–950
González X, Pazó C (2008) Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Res Policy 37(3):371–389. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009
Görg H, Strobl E (2007) The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D. Economica 74(294):215–234. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00547.x
Gottardi G (1996) Technology strategies, innovation without R&D and the creation of knowledge within industrial districts. J Ind Stud 3(2):119–134. doi:10.1080/13662719600000011
Haapanen M, Lenihan H, Mariani M (2014) Government policy failure in public support for research and development. Policy Stud 35(6):557–575. doi:10.1080/01442872.2014.971728
Hagedoorn J, Link AN, Vonortas NS (2000) Research partnerships. Res Policy 29(4–5):567–586. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00090-6
Hall BH (2002) The financing of research and development. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 18(1):35–51. doi:10.1093/oxrep/18.1.35
Hall BH, Lerner J (2010) The financing of R&D and innovation. Handb Econ Innov 1:609–639. doi:10.1016/s0169-7218(10)01014-2
Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84(408):862–74. doi:10.2307/2290059
Hervas-Oliver JL, Albors Garrigos J, Gil-Pechuan I (2011) Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: a forgotten lesson for policymakers. Technovation 3(9):427–446. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.06.006
Himmelberg CP, Petersen BC (1994) R&D and internal finance: a panel study of small firms in high-tech industries. Rev Econ Stat 76(1):38–51. doi:10.2307/2109824
Holland PW (1986) Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc 81(396):945–970
Hujer R, Radic D (2005) Evaluating the impacts of subsidies on innovation in Germany. Scott J Political Econ 52(4):565–586. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9485.2005.00356.x
Hussinger K (2008) R&D and subsidies at the firm level: an application of parametric and semiparametric two-step models. J Appl Econ 23(6):729–747. doi:10.1002/jae.1016
Hyytinen A, Toivanen O (2005) Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth? Evidence on the role of public policy. Res Policy 34(9):1385–1403. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.06.004
Ichino A, Mealli F, Nannicini T (2008) From temporary help jobs to permanent employment: what can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity? J Appl Econ 23(3):305–327. doi:10.1002/jae.998
Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):4–29. doi:10.1162/003465304323023651
Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47(1):5–86. doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5
Imbens GW, Rubin DB (2015) Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kitching J, Blackburn R (1999) Intellectual property management in the small and medium enterprise (SME). J Small Bus Enterp Dev 5(4):327–335. doi:10.1108/eum0000000006797
Kleinknecht A, Reijnen JON (1991) More evidence on the undercounting of small firm R&D. Res Policy 20(6):579–587. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90047-t
Klette TJ, Møen J, Griliches Z (2000) Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Res Policy 29(4–5):471–495. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00086-4
Klette TJ, Møen J (2012) R&D investment responses to R&D subsidies: a theoretical analysis and a microeconometric study. World Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev 9(2–4):169–203. doi:10.1504/wrstsd.2012.047687
Lach S (2002) Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. J Ind Econ 50(4):369–390. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00182
LaLonde RJ (1986) Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am Econ Rev 76(4):604–620
Lee EY, Cin BC (2010) The effect of risk-sharing government subsidy on corporate R&D investment: empirical evidence from Korea. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77(6):881–890. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.01.012
Levinsohn J, Petrin A (2003) Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev Econ Stud 70(2):317–341. doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00246
Lichtenberg FR (1984) The relationship between federal contract R&D and company R&D. Am Econ Rev 74(2):73–78
Lucas RE (1967) Adjustment costs and the theory of supply. J Polit Econ 75(4):321–334. doi:10.1086/259289
Martin M, Scott JT (2000) The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Res Policy 29(4–5):437–447. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00084-0
Marzucchi A, Antonioli D, Montresor S (2015) Industry-research co-operation within and across regional boundaries. What does innovation policy add? Papers Reg Sci 94(3):499–524. doi:10.1111/pirs.12079
McCann P, Ortega-Argilés R (2015) Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Reg Stud 49(8):1291–1302. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
Merito M, Giannangeli S, Bonaccorsi A (2010) Do incentives to industrial R&D enhance research productivity and firm growth? Evidence from the Italian case. Int J Technol Manage 49(1–3):25–48. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2010.029409
OECD (2011) Regions and Innovation Policy. OECD reviews of regional innovation. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264097803-en
Ortega-Argilés R, Vivarelli M, Voigt P (2009) R&D in SMEs: a paradox? Small Bus Econ 33(1):3–11. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9187-5
Peneder M (2008) The problem of private under-investment in innovation: a policy mind map. Technovation 28(8):518–530. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.006
Rammer C, Czarnitzki D, Spielkamp A (2009) Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Bus Econ 33(1):35–58. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9185-7
Robins JM, Rotnitzky A (1995) Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data. J Am Stat Assoc 90(429):122–129. doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476494
Rolfo S, Calabrese G (2003) Traditional SMEs and innovation: the role of the industrial policy in Italy. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 15(3):253–271. doi:10.1080/08985620210158401
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983a) Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. J R Stat Soc Seri B (Statist Methodol) 45(2):212–18
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983b) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39(1):33–38. doi:10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66(5):668–701. doi:10.1037/h0037350
Rubin DB (1980) Comment on randomization analysis of experimental data: the Fisher randomization test by D. Basu. J Am Stat Assoc 75(371):591–593. doi:10.2307/2287653
Rubin DB (2008) For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Ann Appl Stat 2(3):808–840. doi:10.1214/08-aoas187
Som O (2012) Innovation without R&D: Heterogeneous Innovation Patterns of Non-R&D-Performing Firms in the German Manufacturing Industry. Springer Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden
Takalo T, Tanayama T (2010) Adverse selection and financing of innovations: is there a need for R&D subsidies? J Technol Transfer 35(1):16–41. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9112-8
Takalo T, Tanayama T, Toivanen O (2013) Estimating the benefits of targeted R&D subsidies. Rev Econ Stat 95(1):255–272. doi:10.1162/rest_a_00280
Trajtenberg M (2001) R&D policy in Israel: an overview and reassessment. In: Feldman MP, Link AN (eds) Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 409–454
Wallsten SJ (2000) The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Program. Rand J Econ 31(1):82–100. doi:10.2307/2601030
Zúñiga-Vicente JA, Alonso-Borrego C, Forcadell FJ, Galán JI (2014) Assessing the effect of public subsidies on firm R&D investment: a survey. J Econ Surv 28(1):36–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00738.x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mariani, M., Mealli, F. The Effects of R&D Subsidies to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Evidence from a Regional Program. Ital Econ J 4, 249–281 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-017-0062-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-017-0062-2