IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fep/journl/v17y2004i2p51-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Technology Policy Practised as It Is Preached

Author

Listed:
  • Petri Rouvinen

    (The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Finland)

Abstract

The second Finnish Community Innovation Survey is used to study whether the technology policy practice was consistent with the official rhetoric in the mid 1990s. Findings suggest that a firmʼs likelihood of receiving public R&D support increases with outside collaboration, the ability to benefit from inward spillovers, and R&D-intensity. There is some indication that the likelihood also increases with size and employeesʼ formal education. It is confirmed that Tekes promotes cooperation and networking, conducts its mission selectively, and facilitates the exchange of knowledge. It is, however, not found that it would particularly focus on small and medium-sized enterprises or new firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Petri Rouvinen, 2004. "Is Technology Policy Practised as It Is Preached," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 51-62, Autumn.
    • Handle: RePEc:fep:journl:v:17:y:2004:i:2:p:51-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.taloustieteellinenyhdistys.fi/images/stories/fep/fep22004_rouvinen.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Loren Yager & Rachel Schmidt, 1997. "The Advanced Technology Program," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53571, September.
    3. Klette, Tor Jakob & Moen, Jarle & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 471-495, April.
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2002. "The Assessment: Technology Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 1-9, Spring.
    5. Lahiri, Kajal & Schmidt, Peter, 1978. "On the Estimation of Triangular Structural Systems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(5), pages 1217-1221, September.
    6. Bertschek, Irene & Lechner, Michael, 1998. "Convenient estimators for the panel probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 329-371, September.
    7. Rouvinen, Petri, 1999. "Characteristics of Product and Process Innovators among Finnish Manufacturing Firms," Discussion Papers 690, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    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. Hyytinen, Ari & Väänänen, Lotta, 2002. "Government Funding of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Finland," Discussion Papers 832, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

    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. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    2. Tommy Clausen, 2008. "Do subsidies have positive impacts on R&D and innovation activities at the firm level?," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20070615, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    3. Chudnovsky, Daniel & López, Andrés & Rossi, Martín & Ubfal, Diego, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Private Innovation Activities: An Econometric Study of FONTAR in Argentina," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2829, Inter-American Development Bank.
    4. 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.
    5. Elizabeth Webster, 2002. "Intangible and Intellectual Capital: A Review of the Literature," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2002n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Clausen, Tommy H., 2009. "Do subsidies have positive impacts on R&D and innovation activities at the firm level?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 239-253, December.
    7. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    8. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Bronwyn Hall & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172-198.
    10. Tuomas Takalo, 2012. "Rationales and Instruments for Public Innovation Policies," Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, Lifescience Global, vol. 1, pages 157-167.
    11. 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.
    12. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff & Hisarciklilar, Mehtap & Talam, Ema & Jackson, Ian, 2022. "The relative effectiveness of R&D tax credits and R&D subsidies: A comparative meta-regression analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. González, Xulia & Pazó, Consuelo, 2008. "Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 371-389, April.
    14. Gamal Atallah, 2004. "The Allocation Of Resources To Cooperative And Noncooperative R&D," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 435-447, December.
    15. Nestor Duch-Brown & Jose Garcia-Quevedo & Daniel Montolio, 2008. "Assessing the assignation of public subsidies: Do the experts choose the most efficient R&D projects?," Working Papers in Economics 207, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    16. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    17. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Stephan & Alice Hallman & Nils Karlsson, 2016. "The “sugar rush” from innovation subsidies: a robust political economy perspective," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 729-756, November.
    18. Lee, Young Hoon & Kim, YoungJun, 2016. "Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix method: Evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 93-105.
    19. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    20. Cristiano Antonelli, 2020. "Knowledge exhaustibility public support to business R&D and the additionality constraint," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 649-663, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • L29 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:fep:journl:v:17:y:2004:i:2:p:51-62. 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: Editorial Secretary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/talouea.html .

    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.