IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/sbusec/v33y2009i2p207-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Absorptive capacity and R&D tax policy: Are in-house and external contract R&D substitutes or complements?

Author

Listed:
  • Todd Watkins
  • Lolita Paff

Abstract

Firms fund research and development (R&D) to generate commercializable innovations and to increase their ability to understand and absorb knowledge from elsewhere. This dual role and opposed incentive structure of internal R&D creates a significant question for both theory and R&D policy: Is internal R&D a complement or substitute for external R&D? We develop a model and novel technique for empirically estimating R&D substitution elasticities. We focus on bio-pharmaceutical and software industries in California and Massachusetts, where tax credit rates changed differently over time for the two types of R&D, creating a natural experiment. The effective tax prices for the two R&D types differ from type to type, firm to firm, state to state, and year to year. This allows us to examine changes in the composition of firms’ R&D budgets between in-house R&D and external basic research when the relative tax prices of each category of research changes. For a sample comprised largely of small and medium-sized firms, we find evidence of a substitute relationship.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Todd Watkins & Lolita Paff, 2009. "Absorptive capacity and R&D tax policy: Are in-house and external contract R&D substitutes or complements?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 207-227, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:sbusec:v:33:y:2009:i:2:p:207-227
    DOI: 10.1007/s11187-007-9094-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11187-007-9094-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11187-007-9094-6?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    3. Mowery, David C & Oxley, Joanne E, 1995. "Inward Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: The Role of National Innovation Systems," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 67-93, February.
    4. Lolita Paff & Todd A. Watkins, 2009. "What is the After-Tax Price of R&D? An Interstate Comparison," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 73-101, March.
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. James R. Hines, Jr., 1994. "No Place like Home: Tax Incentives and the Location of R&D by American Multinationals," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 65-104, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 1999. "Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 63-80, January.
    8. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    9. Pavitt, K, 2001. "Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 761-779, September.
    10. Mansfield, Edwin, 1980. "Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 863-873, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Diewert, W E, 1971. "An Application of the Shephard Duality Theorem: A Generalized Leontief Production Function," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(3), pages 481-507, May-June.
    13. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "Evaluating technological information and utilizing it : Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 91-114, June.
    14. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Humphrey, David Burras & Moroney, John R, 1975. "Substitution among Capital, Labor, and Natural Resource Products in American Manufacturing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(1), pages 57-82, February.
    16. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Watkins, Todd A., 1991. "A technological communications costs model of R&D consortia as public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 87-107, April.
    18. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    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. Chandan Sharma, 2016. "R&D, Technology Transfer And Productivity In The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(01), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Hagedoorn, John & Wang, Ning, 2010. "Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?," MERIT Working Papers 2010-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Rammer, Christian & Köhler, Christian & Murmann, Martin & Pesau, Agnes & Schwiebacher, Franz & Kinkel, Steffen & Kirner, Eva & Schubert, Torben & Som, Oliver, 2010. "Innovationen ohne Forschung und Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung zu Unternehmen, die ohne eigene FuE-Tätigkeit neue Produkte und Prozesse einführen," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 15-2011, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    4. Sungki Lee & Donghyuk Choi & Yeonbae Kim, 2009. "Contextual Effects on the Complementarities Between R&D Activities: An Empirical Analysis of the Korean Manufacturing Industry," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200917, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Oct 2009.
    5. Zhang, Dongyang & Guo, Rui & He, Xiaodan, 2022. "How does the exclusive license stimulate firm’s subsequent innovation? The role of innovation financial input," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Haddoud, Mohamed Yacine & Kock, Ned & Onjewu, Adah-Kole Emmanuel & Jafari-Sadeghi, Vahid & Jones, Paul, 2023. "Technology, innovation and SMEs' export intensity: Evidence from Morocco," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Marshall S. Jiang & Jie Jiao & Zhouyu Lin & Jun Xia, 2021. "Learning through observation or through acquisition? Innovation performance as an outcome of internal and external knowledge combination," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 35-63, March.
    8. Richard Harris & Astrid Krenz & John Moffat, 2021. "The Effects of Absorptive Capacity on Innovation Performance: A Cross‐country Perspective," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 589-607, May.
    9. Zhao, Chuanmin & Qu, Xi & Luo, Shougui, 2019. "Impact of the InnoCom program on corporate innovation performance in China: Evidence from Shanghai," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 103-118.
    10. Ian Currie, 2011. "Government Policies to Encourage University-Business Research Collaboration in Canada: Lessons from the US, the UK and Australia," CSLS Research Reports 2011-02, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    11. SUN, Yu-tao & ZHANG, Chen & WANG, Jin-min, 2022. "How to Benefit from Balancing External Knowledge Acquisition? A Chinese EIT Industry Case," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    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. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Beatriz Pereira Almeida & Eduardo Gonçalves & André Suriane Silva & Raquel Coelho Reis, 2021. "Internalization of knowledge spillovers by regions: a measure based on self-citation patents," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 66(2), pages 309-330, April.
    3. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    5. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2012. "Productivity effects of basic research in low-tech and high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1555-1564.
    6. 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.
    7. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    8. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    9. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    10. Beck, Mathias & Lopes-Bento, Cindy & Schenker-Wicki, Andrea, 2016. "Radical or incremental: Where does R&D policy hit?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 869-883.
    11. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    12. 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.
    13. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    14. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    16. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    17. Mohieddine Rahmouni & Murat Yildizoglu, 2011. "Motivations and determinants of technological innovations. A theoretical survey (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2011-10, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    18. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    19. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2004. "Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 709-733, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D; Absorptive capacity; Tax credit; R&D substitution; Technology policy; O31; O38; L26; L65; L86;
    All these keywords.

    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

    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:kap:sbusec:v:33:y:2009:i:2:p:207-227. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.