IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p2643-d1362501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Profile of Portuguese Companies That Receive Public Support for Innovation: National Support vs. European Support

Author

Listed:
  • Cátia Rosário

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Aveiro University, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
    CPES-Centro de Pesquisa e Estudos Sociais, Lusófona University, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Celeste Varum

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

  • Anabela Botelho

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

Abstract

Innovation has emerged as the key driver of economic growth, technological advancement, and societal well-being. Recognizing the significance of fostering innovation, governments and policymakers worldwide have increasingly emphasized the need for public support to bolster the innovation ecosystem. This article explores the crucial importance of public support for innovation and delves into the characteristics of companies that receive such support. Based on the Community Innovation Survey of 2014, 2016, and 2018, information was compiled from 1857 companies. Of these companies, common to these 6 years of information, 755 received national support for innovation and 490 received European support. Based on these data, the main objective was to identify and distinguish the characteristics of Portuguese companies that receive European support and national support for innovation. To achieve this objective, logit models were estimated using Stata software. The results suggest that national support favors companies that belong to sectors with greater technological development, which develop new products and processes. Companies that establish cooperation agreements and that belong to groups of companies are also preferred for national support. In turn, of the companies that received European support, it appears that there is less differentiation in preference for the level of technological development. Companies that invest internally in R&D and that establish cooperation agreements for innovation are more likely to obtain European support, as are companies that have a higher proportion of workers with higher education. Finally, both national and European support favor companies with a greater volume of business from foreign markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Cátia Rosário & Celeste Varum & Anabela Botelho, 2024. "Comparison of the Profile of Portuguese Companies That Receive Public Support for Innovation: National Support vs. European Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2643-:d:1362501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2643/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2643/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    2. Justin J.P. Jansen & Frans A.J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2005. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, And Ambidexterity: The Impact Of Environmental And Organizational Antecedents," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 57(4), pages 351-363, October.
    3. Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "Innovation and employment," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 154-154, May.
    4. Ester van Laar & Alexander J. A. M. van Deursen & Jan A. G. M. van Dijk & Jos de Haan, 2020. "Determinants of 21st-Century Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    5. Ben Westmore, 2014. "Policy incentives for private innovation and maximising the returns," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2013(1), pages 121-163.
    6. N.S. Bosma & E. Stam & S. Wennekers, 2011. "Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship: A cross-national analysis of individual entrepreneurial behavior," Working Papers 11-04, Utrecht School of Economics.
    7. Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1996. "R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 630-640, June.
    8. Rita Bessone Basto & Ana Martins & Guida Nogueira, 2021. "The Impact of R&D tax incentives in Portugal," GEE Papers 0158, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised Jan 2021.
    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. Audretsch, David B. & Lehmann, Erik E. & Menter, Matthias & Wirsching, Katharine, 2021. "Intrapreneurship and absorptive capacities: The dynamic effect of labor mobility," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, K. (Матросова, К.), 2016. "Research, Modeling and Process Management Dissemination of Innovations in Socio-Economic Systems [Исследование, Моделирование И Управление Процессами Распространения Инноваций В Социально-Экономиче," Working Papers 1443, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    3. L. Colombo & H. Dawid & M. Piva & M. Vivarelli, 2017. "Does easy start-up formation hamper incumbents’ R&D investment?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 513-531, October.
    4. Buyse, Tim & Heylen, Freddy & Schoonackers, Ruben, 2020. "On the impact of public policies and wage formation on business investment in research and development," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 188-199.
    5. Fors, Gunnar & Zejan, Mario, 1996. "Overseas R&D by Multinationals in foreign Centers of Excellence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 111, Stockholm School of Economics.
    6. Benkraiem, Ramzi & Boubaker, Sabri & Brinette, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2021. "Board feminization and innovation through corporate venture capital investments: The moderating effects of independence and management skills," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Barrios, Salvador & Navajas Cawood, Elena, 2008. "The Location of ICT activities in EU regions. Implications for regional policies," INVESTIGACIONES REGIONALES - Journal of REGIONAL RESEARCH, Asociación Española de Ciencia Regional, issue 13, pages 179-210.
    8. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    9. Erik Stam, 2010. "Entrepreneurship, Evolution and Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Attila Varga & Dimitrios Pontikakis & Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro, 2010. "Absorptive capacity and the delocalisation of university-industry interaction Evidence from participations in the EU's Sixth Framework Programme for Research," Working Papers 2010R01, Orkestra - Basque Institute of Competitiveness.
    11. Mohamed Amara & Khaled Thabet, 2019. "Firm and regional factors of productivity: a multilevel analysis of Tunisian manufacturing," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 63(1), pages 25-51, August.
    12. Martin Carree & Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos, 2011. "A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 263-269, June.
    13. Anna M. Ferragina & Giulia Nunziante, 2018. "Are Italian firms performances influenced by innovation of domestic and foreign firms nearby in space and sectors?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 45(3), pages 335-360, September.
    14. Motoyama, Yasuyuki & Cao, Cong & Appelbaum, Richard, 2014. "Observing regional divergence of Chinese nanotechnology centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 11-21.
    15. Benjamin Montmartin & Nadine Massard, 2015. "Is Financial Support For Private R&D Always Justified? A Discussion Based On The Literature On Growth," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 479-505, July.
    16. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    17. 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.
    18. Enrique López-Bazo & Elisabet Motellón, 2016. "“Innovation, heterogeneous firms, and the region”," AQR Working Papers 201607, University of Barcelona, Regional Quantitative Analysis Group, revised Apr 2016.
    19. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert & Matthias Duschl & Thomas Brenner, 2015. "Joint R and D subsidies, related variety, and regional innovation," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2015-01, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    20. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung - welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert des Wachstum?," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 144, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2643-:d:1362501. 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.