Public Support of Private R&D: Review of Microeconometric Impact Studies

Public Support of Private R&D: Review of Microeconometric Impact Studies

12/1/2016 I Ilkka Ylhäinen, Petri Rouvinen & Tero Kuusi

02/01/2017 Public Support of Private R&D: Review of

Microeconometric Impact Studies 2

The Effects of R&D Subsidies: This Project

The figure shows the position of this micro literature review with relation to other related

projects.

3

VN TEAS & Etlatieto Oy

Public Support of Private R&D: Review of

Microeconometric Impact Studies

VN TEAS:

The joint analysis, assessment and

research activities, coordinated by the

Government, generate information that

supports decision making, working

practices and management by knowledge.

Further information: http://vnk.fi/

Etlatieto Ltd:

Etlatieto Ltd is Etla’s fully-owned subsidiary

conducting externally-financed project

research. This project was conducted over

the time frame 05/2016-08/2016.

Further information: https://www.etla.fi/

02/01/2017

4

Summary



Premise: Summary/interpretation of the findings of microeconometric literature studying the

effects of public subsidies targeting private R&D

Findings:

• Mostly positive coefficients, even

if somewhat inconsistent & frequently

undetermined

• More impact on employment

than on productivity

• Emphasis on additionality: policy motivations &

issues mostly a side note

• Many challenges, e.g., time lags and subsidy

intensity

• A gap between practitioners’ needs & the

available research – both a fundamental

challenge and blame on research/funding

Recommendations:

• Focus: Public interventions’ ability to

address issues that motivate them

• Two-sided selection

Randomized controlled experiment

• Myriad of questions

A mix of approaches/studies

• Building evaluation into policy designs

• Note: Microeconometric issues do not

imply that policy should not be conducted

or that it does not have an impact!

5

Framework



• The most important factor explaining long-term economic welfare: innovation

• The most important source of innovation: research and development

(R&D)

• Shows up in national accounts as labor productivity

• Theory: too little private R&D in terms of welfare without policy action

• ’New Idea’ a complex good: does not wear in use and if shared,

cannot be taken away

• R&D subsidies the only subsidy type based on a solid economic ground and

having common principled support among economists

• More difficult questions: level, targeting and effectiveness of R&D subsidies…

Data

7

Data



Data: earlier impact studies on R&D

subsidies:

• Based on earlier research…

… what can be said?

… what cannot be said?

… what should be researched?

… data difficulties/solutions?

... methodological difficulties/solutions?

• Data collection:

• Article databases

• Review articles, references

• Publication series of Finnish research

institutes

• Email inquiry for innovation researchers

Restrictions:

• Focusing on the effects of public support for

private R&D (including tax credits)

• Utilizing econometric methods

• Utilizing microdata (firm/industry)

• Published in the 2000s

• International articles: peer reviewed in scientific

journal

• Finnish studies: publicly available with

documented data, methods, and results

8

Overview of the Dataset



The data consist of 123 studies of which 83 are international (peer-reviewed) non-

Finnish articles, 13 international articles covering Finland and 27 other Finnish articles.



Institutions: International Studies

The table reports the number and share of institutions in international studies (if N ≥ 2).

Note: computed based on the first affiliation of the first author.

Affiliation N %

KU Leuven 12 14

Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) 3 4

Politecnico di Milano 3 4

Maastricht University 3 4

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 3 4

CERIS-CNR 2 2

Penn State Berks 2 2

Universidade de Vigo 2 2

University of California, Berkeley 2 2



Institutions: Finnish Studies

The table reports the number and share of institutions in Finnish studies. Note:

computed based on the first affiliation of the first author.

Affiliation N %

ETLA 20 50

Bank of Finland 3 8

VTT 3 8

HSE 2 5

Imperial College Business School 2 5

Management Center Innsbruck 2 5

VATT 2 5

Fraunhofer ISI 1 3

Hanken School of Economics 1 3

JSBE 1 3

KU Leuven 1 3

London School of Economics 1 3

Not reported 1 3



Institutions: Peer-Reviewed Studies

The table reports the number and share of institutions in Finnish peer-reviewed studies

(if N ≥ 2). Note: computed based on the first affiliation of the first author.

Affiliation N %

KU Leuven 13 14

ETLA 5 5

Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) 3 3

Imperial College Business School 3 3

Maastricht University 3 3

Politecnico di Milano 3 3

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 3 3

CERIS-CNR 2 2

Penn State Berks 2 2

Universidade de Vigo 2 2

University of California, Berkeley 2 2



Researchers: International Studies

The table reports researchers having at least two publications, when focusing on

international studies.

Researcher Publications %

Czarnitzki D 12 14

Mohnen P 4 5

Busom I 3 4

Colombo MG 3 4

Cerulli G 2 2

Giannangeli S 2 2

Grilli L 2 2

Hottenrott H 2 2

Hussinger K 2 2

Kaiser U 2 2

Lokshin B 2 2

Lopes-Bento C 2 2

Mairesse J 2 2

Paff LA 2 2

Toole AA 2 2



Researchers: Finnish Studies

The table reports researchers having at least three publications, when focusing on

Finnish studies.


Pajarinen M 9 23

Koski H 7 18

Ebersberger B 6 15

Tanayama T 6 15

Toivanen O 5 13

Rouvinen P 4 10

Takalo T 4 10

Ali-Yrkkö J 3 8

Maliranta M 3 8



Researchers: Peer-Reviewed Studies

The table reports researchers having at least two publications, when focusing on peer-

reviewed studies.


Czarnitzki D 13 14

Mohnen P 4 4

Busom I 3 3

Colombo MG 3 3

Autio E 2 2

Cerulli G 2 2

Ebersberger B 2 2

Fier A 2 2

Giannangeli S 2 2

Grilli L 2 2

Hottenrott H 2 2

Hussinger K 2 2

Kaiser U 2 2

Koski H 2 2

Lokshin B 2 2

Lopes-Bento C 2 2

Mairesse J 2 2

Paff LA 2 2

Pajarinen M 2 2

Toivanen O 2 2

Toole AA 2 2



Level of Data

The table reports the number and share of studies utilizing firm-, plant-, project-,

industry- or regional-level datasets. Note: one study may utilize more than one data type.

INTL FI All

Data level N % Data level N % Data level N %

Firm 73 88 Firm 38 95 Firm 111 90

Plant 7 8 Plant 1 3 Plant 8 7

Project 0 0 Project 6 15 Project 6 5

Industry 1 1 Industry 1 3 Industry 2 2

Region 2 2 Region 0 0 Region 2 2



Type of Data

The table reports the number and share of studies using panel, cross-sectional or pooled data. Note: one study may utilize more than one data type. Panel data covers multiple years of firm-specific observations. Cross-sectional data covers a single cross-section year. Pooled data is a combination of panel and cross-sectional data or independent cross-sections analyzed over time.

INTL FI All

Data type N % Data type N % Data type N %

Panel 55 66 Panel 24 60 Panel 79 64

Cross-section 15 18 Cross-section 11 28 Cross-section 26 21

Pooled 14 17 Pooled 5 13 Pooled 19 15



Methods

The table reports the number and percentage of studies utilizing the following econometric methods: OLS, Diff-in-Diff (DiD/CDiD), Generalized Method of Moments (GMM), Heckman selection model, Instrumental variables regression (IV), Matching, Probit/Logit, Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD), Structural model, and Tobit/Heckit. Also, the share of ”good” methods consisting of the following methods are reported: DiD/CDiD, IV, Matching, RDD tai Structural model.

INTL FI All

Methods N % Methods N % Methods N %

OLS 22 27 OLS 8 20 OLS 30 24

DiD/CDiD 12 14 DiD/CDiD 11 28 DiD/CDiD 23 19

GMM 10 12 GMM 2 5 GMM 12 10

Heckman 4 5 Heckman 3 8 Heckman 7 6

IV 19 23 IV 16 40 IV 35 28

Matching 28 34 Matching 11 28 Matching 39 32

Probit/Logit 13 16 Probit/Logit 10 25 Probit/Logit 23 19

RDD 1 1 RDD 0 0 RDD 1 1

Structural 2 2 Structural 4 10 Structural 6 5

Tobit/Heckit 12 14 Tobit/Heckit 3 8 Tobit/Heckit 15 12

Other 4 5 Other 2 5 Other 6 5

“Good” 57 69 “Good” 30 75 “Good” 87 71



Dependent variables

The table reports the dependent variable types based on the following classifications: Input variables include measures, such as R&D expenditures and the number of employees. Output variables cover measures, such as productivity, sales, and patents. Policy variables focus on subsidy granting decisions. Notes: The figures are only computed for studies that do not have ambiguity about the classification type. Percentages do not sum to unity because one study may cover more than one variable type.

INTL FI All

Dependent variable N % Dependent variable N % Dependent variable N %

Input 62 81 Input 24 63 Input 86 75

Output 22 29 Output 22 58 Output 44 38

Policy 3 4 Policy 5 13 Policy 8 7



Policy Instruments

The table reports the share of international and Finnish studies that analyze the given

policy instrument (subsidy, loan, tax credit). Note: one study may cover more than one

policy instrument.

INTL FI

Instrument N % Instrument N %

Subsidy 64 77 Subsidy 37 93

Loan 4 5 Loan 24 60

Tax credit 25 30 Tax credit 3 8



Target Journals

The table reports the international journals for which the data has at least two

publications.

Peer-Reviewed Publications (INTL+FI) N %

Research Policy 25 26

Small Business Economics 9 9

Review of Economics and Statistics 3 3

Technovation 3 3

World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 3 3

Finnish Economic Papers 2 2

Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 2 2

Journal of Applied Econometrics 2 2

Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 2 2

R&D Management 2 2

Review of Industrial Organization 2 2

Scottish Journal of Political Economy 2 2



International Studies: Countries

The table reports the countries studied in the international peer-reviewed journals (if N ≥

2)

Country N

Germany 18

Finland 14

Spain 11

Italy 10

United States 10

Belgium 7

Japan 5

Canada 5

China 4

Norway 3

France 3

Taiwan 3

Denmark 3

United Kingdom 3

Korea 2

Netherlands 2

Ireland 2

Sweden 2



Financiers: Finnish Studies

The table reports the financiers in studies analyzing Finland.

Financier N %

Tekes 26 67

MEAE 11 28

Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation 5 13

Not reported 4 10

Academy of Finland 3 8

Sitra 2 5

Technology Industries of Finland Centennial Foundation 2 5

Technology Industries of Finland 2 5

Alfred Kordelin Foundation 1 3

Ella and Georg Ernrooth Foundation 1 3

EU Seventh Framework Programme 1 3

European Social Fund 1 3

Finnish Cultural Foundation 1 3

Finpro 1 3

Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation 1 3

Federation of Finnish Metal and Engineering Industries 1 3

National Academies 1 3

OP Group Research Foundation 1 3

Parlamentary State Auditors 1 3

UK Entrepreneurship Research Centre 1 3

University of Jyväskylä 1 3



Controls for Key Factors

The table reports the number and share of international (INTL), Finnish (FI), and all

studies in the dataset that control for a given issue in the econometric analysis.

Controls for unobserved firm-specific heterogeneity

Data N % Data N % Data N %

INTL 37 45 FI 16 40 All 53 43

Controls for selection


INTL 56 67 FI 31 78 All 87 71

Takes into account heterogenous effects


INTL 43 52 FI 24 60 All 67 54

Takes into account time lags


INTL 38 46 FI 21 53 All 59 48

Controls for subsidy intensity


INTL 36 43 FI 24 60 All 60 49

Takes into account spillovers (e.g., with contols variables)


INTL 15 18 FI 16 40 All 31 25

Controls for financial variables or studies financial constraints


INTL 41 49 FI 11 28 All 52 42

Studies effectiveness (other than inputs)


INTL 22 29 FI 22 58 All 44 36

Effects of R&D Subsidies

Overall View of the Policy Impact



26

Summary of the Effects of R&D Subsidies

The table reports the number and share of studies for which the the effect of R&D subsidy is positive, ambiguous (zero or statistically insignificant), or negative based on the sign of the coefficient. Note: tax credit studies utilizing user cost of R&D capital method have been omitted from the analysis.

INTL FI All

Effect N % Effect N % Effect N %

Positive 62 49 Positive 22 33 Positive 84 44

0 / Non-significant 53 42 0 / Non-significant 38 58 0 / Non-significant 91 47

Negative 11 9 Negative 6 9 Negative 17 9

02/01/2017



27

R&D Investments

The table reports the frequency of positive, ambiguous (zero / insignificant), and negative

results. Dependent variable: R&D investments. Note: tax credit studies utilizing user cost

of R&D capital method have been omitted from the analysis.

INTL N % FI N %

Positive 40 50 Positive 6 60

0 / Non-significant 32 40 0 / Non-significant 4 40

Negative 8 10 Negative 0 0

Total 80 100 Total 10 100

02/01/2017



28

Employment

The table reports the frequency of positive, ambiguous (zero / insignificant), and

negative results. Dependent variable: employment or its growth.

INTL N % FI N %





02/01/2017



29

Patenting / Innovation Output

The table reports the frequency of positive, ambiguous (zero / insignificant), and

negative results. Dependent variable: patents or other innovation output.

INTL N % FI N %





02/01/2017



30

Labor Productivity or Total Factor Productivity

The table reports the frequency of positive, ambiguous (zero / insignificant), and negative results. Dependent variable: labor productivity, total factor productivity (TFP) or their growth.

INTL N % FI N %





02/01/2017

Review of Recent Subsidy Literature

• R&D subsidies have a positive effect on R&D investments (Hussinger 2008, Einiö 2014)

• Bronzini and Iachini (2014): No significant differences in the investments between subsidized and non-subsidized firms. Total effects mask substantial heterogeneity in the program effects; small firms increase investments about the size of the subsidy, unlike large firms (see, e.g., Lach, 2002; Gonzalez et al., 2005; González & Pazó, 2008)

• R&D subsidies positively related to innovation output measured in terms of patents (Criscuolo & Squicciarini, 2009; Czarnitzki, Ebersberger, & Fier, 2007, Czarnitzki & Delanote, 2015; Howell, 2016; Hujer & Radic, 2005), even if the effect not always significant (Cappelen, Raknerud, & Rybalka, 2012)

• Research investments more sensitive to liquidity constraints than development investments (Czarnitzki, Hottenrott ja Thorwarth 2011). Firms focusing on cutting-edge R&D projects more financially constrained than firms focusing on routine projects (Czarnitzki & Hottenrott, 2011)

• Hud and Hussinger (2015): R&D subsidies have a positive effect on innovation output in Germany, although crowding out observed during the worst period of the international financial crisis. Once the economy started to heal, the effects more modest than before but still positive and significant

32

Effects on R&D Investments and Innovation



02/01/2017

• Hyytinen and Toivanen (2005): capital market imperfections hold back innovation and growth; government funding disproportionately helps firms in the industries more dependent on external finance.

• Autio and Rannikko (2016): NIY program of Tekes more than doubled the sales growth of target firms.

• Subsidized firms grew faster and were more likely to obtain venture capital than other firms in the US (Lerner, 1999).

• In Belgium, R&D subsidies positively related to the use of long-term debt (Meuleman & De Maeseneire, 2012).

• In Italy, selective subsidies positively related to employment (Colombo, Giannangeli, & Grilli, 2012) and TFP growth (Colombo, Grilli, & Murtinu, 2011) unlike automatic subsidies.

• Howell (2016): R&D subsidies double the probability of obtaining venture capital. Śubsidies also increase patenting and sales. The effects larger among financially constrained firms.

33

Growth Effects



02/01/2017

• Koski and Pajarinen (2013): Business subsidies on average have positive empoyment effects among startups and older firms. No significant contemporary or later effects among young fast-growing firms. R&D subsidies in general have a positive short-term employment effect but no significant longer term effect.

• Einiö (2014) finds that R&D subsidies have a positive effect on employment and sales; no immediate productivity effects but evidence on longer-term effects.

• Pajarinen and Rouvinen (2014) observe that Tekes funding does not seem to have a positive and significant effect on the labor productivity of firms.

• Karhunen and Huovari (2015) study the productivity effects of R&D subsidies and do not find positive effects within five years after the granting of subsidies.

• Koski and Pajarinen (2015) find that R&D subsidies (and other business subsidies) do not have statistically significant short or longer term (3-5 years) effects on labor productivity.

34

Employment and Productivity Effects



02/01/2017

• Zuniga-Vicente, Alonso-Borrego, Forcadell qnd Galan (2014): empirical evidence on the effects of R&D subsidies contradictory and inconclusive; while findings supporting additionality more common, other results point towards the opposite view (substitution) or suggest insignificant effecs.

• Becker (2015) observes that recent literature more in line with the complementary role of R&D subsidies than crowding out

• Dimos and Pugh (2016): the findings appear to reject the hypothesis of crowding out, but do not provide evidence of significant additionality.

• Castellacci and Lie (2015): The additionality effect of R&D tax credits strongest among SMEs, service sector firms and low-tech firms. Stronger effects for firms having a low R&D intensity instead of promoting high R&D intensity firms in technologically advanced sectors. R&D tax credits promote catching-up process rather than advance the boundaries of technological frontier.

35

R&D Subsidies and Additionality



02/01/2017

• Takalo et al. (2013a): The social rate of return of targeted subsidies in the range of 30–50 % – exceeds the shadow cost of public funds. Spillover effects (externalities) lower than private returns; about 60 % of total returns internalized by the treated firms.

• Takalo, Tanayama and Toivanen (2016): Both the optimal R&D tax credits and targeted subsidies result in significantly higher R&D investments and spillovers than the alternative state of world without them (laissez-faire) but do not increase R&D participation. Neither policy instrument appear to result in significant welfare improvements after accounting for the shadow cost of public funds.

36

Economic Welfare Effects



02/01/2017

• Tax credits analyzed in Kuusi, Pajarinen, Rouvinen and

Valkonen (2016).

• Based on the literature, no sense in attempting to draw a

clear line between direct subsidies and tax credits.

• In the context of Finland, tax credits unlikely to provide a

clear advantage or addition over the current system.

• A threat of overlapping systems if both direct subsidies

and tax credits implemented.

37

Direct Subsidies or Tax Credits?



02/01/2017

• Autio, E., & Rannikko, H. (2016). Retaining Winners: Can Policy Boost High-Growth Entrepreneurship? Research Policy, 45(1), 42-55. doi: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00487333

• Becker, B. (2015). Public R&D Policies and Private R&D Investment: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(5), 917-942. doi:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-6419/issues

• Bronzini, R., & Iachini, E. (2014). Are Incentives for R&D Effective? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Approach. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 100-134. doi: http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-policy/

• Cappelen, A., Raknerud, A., & Rybalka, M. (2012). The Effects of R&D Tax Credits on Patenting and Innovations. Research Policy, 41(2), 334-345. doi: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00487333

• Castellacci, F., & Lie, C. M. (2015). Do the Effects of R&D Tax Credits Vary across Industries? A Meta-regression Analysis. Research Policy, 44(4), 819-832. doi:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00487333

• Colombo, M. G., Giannangeli, S., & Grilli, L. (2012). Public subsidies and the employment growth of high-tech start-ups: assessing the impact of selective and automatic support schemes. Industrial and Corporate Change. doi: 10.1093/icc/dts037

• Colombo, M. G., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2011). R&D subsidies and the performance of high-tech start-ups. Economics Letters, 112(1), 97-99. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.03.007

• Criscuolo, C., & Squicciarini, M. (2009). R&D Subsidies' Output Additionality: IV Panel Evidence from Finland. Mimeo. London School of Economics, Centre for Economic Performance & VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Innovation Studies.

38

References



02/01/2017

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00487333


http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-policy/




http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.03.007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.03.007

• Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2015). R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects. [Article]. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 465-485. doi: 10.1007/s11187-015-9661-1

• Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The Relationship between R&D Collaboration, Subsidies and R&D Performance: Empirical Evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7), 1347-1366. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1255/issues

• Czarnitzki, D., & Hottenrott, H. (2011). Financial Constraints: Routine versus Cutting Edge R&D Investment. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 20(1), 121-157. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291530-9134/issues

• Czarnitzki, D., Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industrial research versus development investment: the implications of financial constraints. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(3), 527-544. doi: 10.1093/cje/beq038

• Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy, 45(4), 797-815. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.002

• Einiö, E. (2014). R&D Subsidies and Company Performance: Evidence from Geographic Variation in Government Funding Based on the ERDF Population-Density Rule. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(4), 710-728. doi: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/rest

• Gonzalez, X., Jaumandreu, J., & Pazo, C. (2005). Barriers to Innovation and Subsidy Effectiveness. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(4), 930-950. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291756-2171/issues

• González, X., & Pazó, C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, 37(3), 371-389. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009

39

References



02/01/2017

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1255/issues








http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.002


http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/rest





• Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2007). The Effect of R&D Subsidies on Private R&D. Economica, 74(294), 215-234. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291468-0335/issues

• Howell, S. T. (2016). Financing Innovation: Evidence from R&D Grants. American Economic Review, forthcoming.

• Hud, M., & Hussinger, K. (2015). The impact of R&D subsidies during the crisis. [Article]. Research Policy, 44(10), 1844-1855. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.003

• Hujer, R., & Radic, D. (2005). Evaluating the Impacts of Subsidies on Innovation Activities in Germany. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(4), 565-586. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-9485

• 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. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1255/issues

• Hyytinen, A., & Toivanen, O. (2005). Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth? Evidence on the role of public policy. [Article]. Research Policy, 34(9), 1385-1403. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.06.004

• Karhunen, H., & Huovari, J. (2015). R&D Subsidies and Productivity in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 805-823. doi: http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/11187

• Koski, H., & Pajarinen, M. (2013). The role of business subsidies in job creation of start-ups, gazelles and incumbents. [Article]. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 195-214. doi: 10.1007/s11187-012-9420-5

40

References



02/01/2017




http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9485






http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/11187

• Koski, H., & Pajarinen, M. (2015). Subsidies, the Shadow of Death and Labor Productivity. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 15(2), 189-204. doi: http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/10842

• Kuusi, T., Pajarinen, M., Rouvinen, P., & Valkonen, T. (2016). Arvio t&k-verokannusteen vaikutuksista yritysten toimintaan Suomessa. Etla Raportit. ETLA, Elinkeinoelämän tutkimuslaitos.

• Lach, S. (2002). Do R&D Subsidies Stimulate or Displace Private R&D? Evidence from Israel. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(4), 369-390. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-6451/issues

• Lerner, J. (1999). The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program. [Article]. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285-318.

• Meuleman, M., & De Maeseneire, W. (2012). Do R&D subsidies affect SMEs’ access to external financing? Research Policy, 41(3), 580-591. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.001

• Pajarinen, M., & Rouvinen, P. (2014). Tekesin rahoituksen vaikutus työn tuottavuuteen ETLA Raportit No 35.

• Takalo, T., Tanayama, T., & Toivanen, O. (2013a). Estimating the Benefits of Targeted R&D Subsidies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 255-272. doi: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/rest

• Takalo, T., Tanayama, T., & Toivanen, O. (2016). Welfare Effects of R&D Support Policies. Mimeo. Hanken School of Economics, European Investment Bank, Aalto University School of Business, KU Leuven, CEPR & Hecer.

• Zuniga-Vicente, J. A., Alonso-Borrego, C., Forcadell, F. J., & Galan, J. I. (2014). Assessing the Effect of Public Subsidies on Firm R&D Investment: A Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(1), 36-67. doi: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-6419/issues

41

References



02/01/2017

http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/10842






http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/rest





Thank you!

Further information: [email protected]