IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v12y2024i6p148-d1413540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Public Incentives in Promoting Innovation: An Analysis of Recurrently Supported Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Cátia Rosário

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Celeste Varum

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Anabela Botelho

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

This study delves into the intricate relationship between corporate innovation and public support, underscoring innovation’s vital role in driving economic growth and competitiveness. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of innovation, from product and process improvements to organizational and marketing innovations, we examine how specific business characteristics and sectoral specificities condition access to public research and development (R&D) support, both nationally and at the European level. We analyze data from five Community Innovation Survey (CIS) reports spanning from 2008 to 2018 using ordered logit models. This approach evaluates the likelihood of companies receiving recurring public support for R&D based on internal R&D investments, interinstitutional collaboration, employee qualifications, and sectoral attributes. The findings reveal that internal R&D investments and collaboration with other entities significantly increase the likelihood of a company receiving recurrent public support. Furthermore, companies in high-tech sectors are more prone to receive public assistance. However, the analysis of European support shows no widespread statistical significance of the considered variables, suggesting the influence of evolving funding policies and an imbalanced dependent variable distribution. We conclude that the ability to secure public R&D support is influenced by a mix of company-internal and -external factors, highlighting the need for comprehensive and adaptable innovation policies. This study’s limitations, including potential sample non-representativeness and the dynamics of funding policies, underscore the importance of further, more encompassing research.

Suggested Citation

  • Cátia Rosário & Celeste Varum & Anabela Botelho, 2024. "The Role of Public Incentives in Promoting Innovation: An Analysis of Recurrently Supported Companies," Economies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:12:y:2024:i:6:p:148-:d:1413540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/6/148/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/6/148/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fulvio Castellacci & Prince C. Oguguo & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas, 2022. "Quality of pro-market national institutions and firms’ decision to invest in R&D: evidence from developing and transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 35-57, March.
    2. Leyden, Dennis Patrick & Link, Albert N., 2015. "Public Sector Entrepreneurship: U.S. Technology and Innovation Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199313853, December.
    3. Rodrik, Dani, 2004. "Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century," Working Paper Series rwp04-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Charles Bérubé & Pierre Mohnen, 2009. "Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 206-225, February.
    5. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.
    6. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A toolkit of policies to promote innovation," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    7. Anna M. Carabelli & Mario A. Cedrini, 2014. "Keynes, the Great Depression, and international economic relations," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 22(3), pages 105-136.
    8. Adriaan van der Loos & Koen Frenken & Marko Hekkert & Simona Negro, 2024. "On the resilience of innovation systems," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 42-74, January.
    9. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. José Ángel Zúñiga-Vicente & César Alonso-Borrego & Francisco J. Forcadell & José I. Galán, 2014. "Assessing The Effect Of Public Subsidies On Firm R&D Investment: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 36-67, February.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Andrew A. Toole, 2011. "Patent Protection, Market Uncertainty, and R&D Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 147-159, February.
    12. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2020. "The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms [“Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(2), pages 645-709.
    13. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
    14. Dirk Czarnitzki & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2014. "Innovation Subsidies: Does the Funding Source Matter for Innovation Intensity and Performance? Empirical Evidence from Germany," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 380-409, July.
    15. Gary S. Becker, 1964. "Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, First Edition," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck-5.
    16. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2019. "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    17. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    18. Bronwyn H. Hall & Francesca Lotti & Jacques Mairesse, 2013. "Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 300-328, April.
    19. Xulia González & Jordi Jaumandreu & Consuelo Pazo, 2005. "Barriers to Innovation and Subsidy Effectiveness," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 930-949, Winter.
    20. Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1989. "Markets, Market Failures, and Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(2), pages 197-203, May.
    21. 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.
    22. Josh Lerner, 2002. "When Bureaucrats Meet Entrepreneurs: The Design of Effective "Public Venture Capital" Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(477), pages 73-84, February.
    23. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    24. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluca Orsatti & Guido Pialli, 2023. "The knowledge-intensive direction of technological change," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, March.
    25. Michael E. Porter & Scott Stern, 2000. "Measuring the "Ideas" Production Function: Evidence from International Patent Output," NBER Working Papers 7891, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. Loof, Hans & Heshmati, Almas, 2002. "Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: : A firm-level innovation study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-85, March.
    27. Anker Lund Vinding, 2006. "Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: A human capital approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 507-517.
    28. Hugo Pinto & Tiago Santos Pereira & Elvira Uyarra, 2019. "Innovation in firms, resilience and the economic downturn: Insights from CIS data in Portugal," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(6), pages 951-967, December.
    29. Zhang, JingJing & Guan, Jiancheng, 2018. "The time-varying impacts of government incentives on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 132-144.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nadine Levratto & Aurelien Quignon, 2021. "Innovation Performance and the Signal Effect: Evidence from a European Program," Working Papers halshs-03466903, HAL.
    2. Thomas H. W. Ziesemer, 2021. "The Effects of R&D Subsidies and Publicly Performed R&D on Business R&D: A Survey," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 236(1), pages 171-205, March.
    3. Aurélien Quignon & Nadine Levratto, 2021. "Innovation Performance and the Signal Effect: Evidence from a European Program," EconomiX Working Papers 2021-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    4. Hud, Martin & Hussinger, Katrin, 2015. "The impact of R&D subsidies during the crisis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1844-1855.
    5. Stojčić, Nebojša & Srhoj, Stjepan & Coad, Alex, 2020. "Innovation procurement as capability-building: Evaluating innovation policies in eight Central and Eastern European countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2015. "R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 465-485, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2013. "Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 76-89.
    10. Dezhina, I. & Simachev, Yu., 2013. "Matching Grants for Stimulating Partnerships between Companies and Universities in Innovation Area: Initial Effects in Russia," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 99-122.
    11. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna, 2015. "UK and EU subsidies and private R&D investment: Is there input additionality?," MPRA Paper 68009, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Nov 2015.
    12. Kwangsoo Shin & Minkyung Choy & Chul Lee & Gunno Park, 2019. "Government R&D Subsidy and Additionality of Biotechnology Firms: The Case of the South Korean Biotechnology Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Bronzini, Raffaello & Piselli, Paolo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 442-457.
    14. Huergo, Elena & Trenado, Mayte & Ubierna, Andrés, 2016. "The impact of public support on firm propensity to engage in R&D: Spanish experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 206-219.
    15. Kou, Mingting & Yang, Yuanqi & Chen, Kaihua, 2020. "The impact of external R&D financing on innovation process from a supply-demand perspective," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 375-387.
    16. LOPES BENTO Cindy & CZARNITZKI Dirk, 2012. "Value for money? New microeconomic evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-19, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    17. Huergo, Elena & Moreno, Lourdes, 2017. "Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R&D support programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1198-1214.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Sergio Afcha & Jose García-Quevedo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(6), pages 955-975.

    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:gam:jecomi:v:12:y:2024:i:6:p:148-:d:1413540. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.