IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v51y2022i7s004873332200066x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the tail of the distribution: the economic contributions of frequently awarded government R&D recipients

Author

Listed:
  • Feldman, Maryann
  • Johnson, Evan E.
  • Bellefleur, Remi
  • Dowden, Savannah
  • Talukder, Eshika

Abstract

Government R&D programs are intended to assist in the commercialization of technology and provide for the greater public good. Among the primary instruments for this type of government action are competitive grants for small, high-tech businesses. However, there is a perception among scholars and administrators that a small number of firms receive a large number of awards without furthering government objectives. The term mill is a less than complimentary term used to reference a firm that receives multiple government R&D awards. The criticism is based on a belief that this group of firms do not advance innovative technologies and do not serve the needs of the awarding agency. As a result, there are attempts to limit the number of awards that firms receive, with limited consideration of the firms themselves and the role they play in the larger innovation system. We specifically examine the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, focusing on a group of firms at the extreme tail of the distribution of awards. We consider the business model employed by these firms, their patenting and licensing behavior, and the products they introduce to the market. We also consider their impacts as incubators of spinoff firms, research environments that augment human capital, and suppliers to government through procurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Feldman, Maryann & Johnson, Evan E. & Bellefleur, Remi & Dowden, Savannah & Talukder, Eshika, 2022. "Evaluating the tail of the distribution: the economic contributions of frequently awarded government R&D recipients," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:7:s004873332200066x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332200066X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104539?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "Governments as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 2, pages 25-38, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    3. John Haltiwanger & Ron S. Jarmin & Robert Kulick & Javier Miranda, 2016. "High Growth Young Firms: Contribution to Job, Output, and Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Entrepreneurial Businesses: Current Knowledge and Challenges, pages 11-62, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bronwyn Hall, 2004. "The financing of research and development," Chapters, in: Anthony Bartzokas & Sunil Mani (ed.), Financial Systems, Corporate Investment in Innovation, and Venture Capital, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "Private Investor Participation and Commercialization Rates for Government-sponsored Research and Development: Would a Prediction Market Improve the Performance of the SBIR Programme?," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 11, pages 157-174, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Sabrina T. Howell, 2017. "Financing Innovation: Evidence from R&D Grants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1136-1164, April.
    7. Donald Siegel & Charles Wessner, 2012. "Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: evidence from the small business innovation research program," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 404-415, August.
    8. Toole, Andrew A. & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2007. "Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 716-738, August.
    9. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    10. Auerswald, Philip E & Branscomb, Lewis M, 2003. "Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing the Invention to Innovation Transition in the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(3-4), pages 227-239, August.
    11. Feldman, Maryann P. & Kelley, Maryellen R., 2006. "The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: Government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1509-1521, December.
    12. Lanahan, Lauren & Joshi, Amol M. & Johnson, Evan, 2021. "Do public R&D subsidies produce jobs? Evidence from the SBIR/STTR program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    13. Hiroyasu Inoue & Eiichi Yamaguchi, 2017. "Evaluation of the Small Business Innovation Research Program in Japan," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, February.
    14. Lerner, Josh, 1999. "The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(3), pages 285-318, July.
    15. Toby Stuart & Yanbo Wang, 2016. "Who cooks the books in China, and does it pay? Evidence from private, high‐technology firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(13), pages 2658-2676, December.
    16. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    17. Lauren Lanahan & Daniel Armanios, 2018. "Does More Certification Always Benefit a Venture?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 931-947, October.
    18. Scott J. Wallsten, 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, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 82-100, Spring.
    19. Eugenie Samuel Reich, 2013. "US research firms put under pressure to sell," Nature, Nature, vol. 499(7457), pages 137-138, July.
    20. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff, 2016. "The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 797-815.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feldman, Maryann & Fleming, Lee & Heaton, Sohvi & Desai, Sameeksha & Teece, David, 2022. "Uncommon methods and metrics for local entrepreneurial ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2021. "The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    2. Lanahan, Lauren & Joshi, Amol M. & Johnson, Evan, 2021. "Do public R&D subsidies produce jobs? Evidence from the SBIR/STTR program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    3. Aleksandar Giga & Alexandra Graddy-Reed & Andrea Belz & Richard J. Terrile & Fernando Zapatero, 2022. "Helping the Little Guy: the impact of government awards on small technology firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 846-871, June.
    4. George A Shinkle & Jo-Ann Suchard, 2019. "Innovation in newly public firms: The influence of government grants, venture capital, and private equity," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(2), pages 248-281, May.
    5. Fini, Riccardo & Perkmann, Markus & Kenney, Martin & Maki, Kanetaka M., 2023. "Are public subsidies effective for university spinoffs? Evidence from SBIR awards in the University of California system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    6. Shuang Wang & Shukuan Zhao & Dong Shao & Hongyu Liu, 2020. "Impact of Government Subsidies on Manufacturing Innovation in China: The Moderating Role of Political Connections and Investor Attention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Koh, Yumi & Lee, Gea M., 2023. "R&D subsidies in permissive and restrictive environment: Evidence from Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    8. Haifeng Qian & Kingsley Haynes, 2014. "Beyond innovation: the Small Business Innovation Research program as entrepreneurship policy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 524-543, August.
    9. Guerrero, Maribel & Siegel, Donald S., 2024. "Schumpeter meets Teece: Proposed metrics for assessing entrepreneurial innovation and dynamic capabilities in entrepreneurial ecosystems in an emerging economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    10. Chen, Jin & Heng, Cheng Suang & Tan, Bernard C.Y. & Lin, Zhijie, 2018. "The distinct signaling effects of R&D subsidy and non-R&D subsidy on IPO performance of IT entrepreneurial firms in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 108-120.
    11. Wang, Yanbo & Li, Jizhen & Furman, Jeffrey L., 2017. "Firm performance and state innovation funding: Evidence from China’s innofund program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1142-1161.
    12. Polzin, Friedemann & von Flotow, Paschen & Klerkx, Laurens, 2016. "Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 34-46.
    13. Reynold V. Galope, 2016. "A Different Certification Effect of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 30(4), pages 371-383, November.
    14. Zhao, Bo & Ziedonis, Rosemarie, 2020. "State governments as financiers of technology startups: Evidence from Michigan's R&D loan program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    15. Pietro Santoleri & Andrea Mina & Alberto Di Minin & Irene Martelli, 2020. "The causal effects of R&D grants: evidence from a regression discontinuity," LEM Papers Series 2020/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "Employment growth from public support of innovation in small firms," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 3, pages 41-64, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Hiroyasu Inoue & Eiichi Yamaguchi, 2017. "Evaluation of the Small Business Innovation Research Program in Japan," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, February.
    18. Enrico Vanino & Stephen Roper & Bettina Becker, 2020. "Knowledge to Money: Assessing the Business Performance Effects of Publicly Funded R&D Grants," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(04), pages 20-24, January.
    19. Supradeep Dutta & Jenna Rodrigues & Timothy B. Folta, 2023. "Does NIH select the right healthcare ventures through the SBIR grant program?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1206-1220, August.
    20. Goerke, Björn & Albers, Sönke, 2016. "Long-term effects of subsidies on firm growth: introducing the concept of outcome additionality," EconStor Preprints 142164, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:7:s004873332200066x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.