IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/006356/6846.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of R&D Subsidy for Small and Medium Enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Chanyoung Hong
  • Jung In Yeon
  • Jeong-Dong Lee

Abstract

Research and development (R&D) is regarded as a core factor which decides the productivity of a firm in the analysis of modern industrial economics. But the R&D behavior and the consequent effect are observed to be different depending on the firm size and industry belonging. Despite the tendency to show less amount in its expenditure, R&D of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is important because SMEs occupy major part in the number of firms and employees of a nation. This research analyzes the effect of R&D subsidy for SMEs across industry and national economy. In order to achieve the purpose, macroeconomic model of computable general equilibrium (CGE) is used. The typical form of CGE model is modified into knowledge-based one which has additional accounts and equations to incorporate R&D-related factors. Furthermore, social accounting matrix (SAM) in the model differentiates between SMEs and large firms in each industry. The simulation results are expected to show us that R&D in SMEs causes different effects and implications on various sides such as employment, knowledge stock and GDP growth. For example, subsidy for SMEs may not be relatively effective for GDP growth, but it may cause more increase in employment.

Suggested Citation

  • Chanyoung Hong & Jung In Yeon & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2014. "The Effect of R&D Subsidy for Small and Medium Enterprises," EcoMod2014 6846, EcoMod.
    • Handle: RePEc:ekd:006356:6846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/ECOMOD2014_Presentation_Hong.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 2008. "Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 1, pages 3-15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. William S. Comanor, 1967. "Market Structure, Product Differentiation, and Industrial Research," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 81(4), pages 639-657.
    3. Acs, Zoltan J. & Audretsch, David B., 1987. "Innovation in large and small firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 109-112.
    4. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M & Levin, Richard C & Mowery, David C, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 543-565, June.
    6. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Madanmohan Ghosh, 2007. "R&D Policies and Endogenous Growth: A Dynamic General Equilibrium Analysis of the Case for Canada," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(1), pages 187-203, February.
    8. Isidoro Romero & Francisco Javier Santos, 2007. "Firm Size and Regional Linkages: A Typology of Manufacturing Establishments in Southern Spain," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 571-584.
    9. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Schneider, Stephen H., 1999. "Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 211-253, August.
    10. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2018. "Propensity to Patent and Firm Size for Small R&D-Intensive Firms," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(4), pages 561-587, June.
    2. Minniti, Antonio, 2011. "Knowledge appropriability, firm size, and growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 438-454, September.
    3. Chanyoung Hong & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2016. "Macroeconomic effects of R&D tax credits on small and medium enterprises," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 467-481, October.
    4. Raquel Ortega-Argilés & Marco Vivarelli & Peter Voigt, 2009. "R&D in SMEs: a paradox?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 3-11, June.
    5. Lee, Chang-Yang & Sung, Taeyoon, 2005. "Schumpeter's legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 914-931, August.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    7. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Hai Wu & Anne-Maree Thomas & Sue Wright, 2020. "Using the R&D capitalisation choice to explain the scale benefits of R&D investment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(4), pages 579-606, November.
    9. Sumit Majumdar, 2011. "Scalability versus flexibility: firm size and R&D in Indian industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 101-116, February.
    10. Richard Harris & Mary Trainor, 2009. "Why Do Some Firms Undertake R&D Whereas Others Do Not?," SERC Discussion Papers 0020, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Bergner, Sören Martin & Bräutigam, Rainer & Evers, Maria Theresia & Spengel, Christoph, 2017. "The use of SME tax incentives in the European Union," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-006, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Jaakko Simonen, 2005. "The innovativeness of the Finnish high technology firms – The role of internal factors, cooperation, and the mobility of labour," ERSA conference papers ersa05p462, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Shouming Chen & Kaidi Xu & Luu Thi Nguyen & Guangsheng Yu, 2018. "TMT’s Attention towards Financial Goals and Innovation Investment: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Saha, Souresh, 2014. "Firm's objective function and product and process R&D," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 484-494.
    15. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    16. Kumar, Nagesh & Saqib, Mohammed, 1996. "Firm size, opportunities for adaptation and in-house R & D activity in developing countries: the case of Indian manufacturing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 713-722, August.
    17. Nanditha Mathew & George Paily, 2022. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 435-458, April.
    18. Michael L. Katz & Howard A. Shelanski, 2005. "Merger Policy and Innovation: Must Enforcement Change to Account for Technological Change?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 109-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Pascal L. Ghazalian & Ali Fakih, 2017. "R&D and Innovation in Food Processing Firms in Transition Countries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 427-450, June.
    20. Fors, Gunnar & Svensson, Roger, 2002. "R&D and foreign sales in Swedish multinationals: a simultaneous relationship?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 95-107, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    South Korea; General equilibrium modeling (CGE); Public finance and tax issues;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ekd:006356:6846. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.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.