IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kdifoc/89.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Government R&D Support for SMEs: Policy Effects and Improvement Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Sungho

Abstract

The government's R&D grant for SMEs has risen to 3 trillion won a year, placing Korea second among OECD nations. Indeed, analysis revealed that government support has not only expanded corporate R&D investment and registration of intellectual property rights but has also increased investment in tangible and human assets and marketing. However, there has been a lack of improvements found in the value added, sales and operating profit because the recipient selection system, which relies solely on the qualitative assessments of technology experts was ineffective. Nevertheless, if a predictive model was properly applied to the system, the causal effect on the value added could increase by more than two fold. Accordingly, to develop such a model, it is important to focus on the economic performance rather than the technical achievements. Also, more policy experiments should be conducted on small firms and a phased approach for R&D financing should to be adopted (① grant → ② equity investment → ③ loan). - Korea's R&D subsidy for SMEs has risen to approx. 3 trillion won a year, making Korea the second largest spender among OECD nations. - The SBIR, the main R&D support program for SMEs in the US, is structured in three phases. - The US case shows that the small lump sum grants for a large number of small firms is more effective than large funds for a few mid-sized firms. - The Korean government's corporate R&D support mostly targets medium-sized development activities, not small-scaled exploratory research. - Current corporate R&D support which is evaluated by the number of registered patents and publications must be reformed. - The scalability of intangible assets is as important as the economies of scale of tangible assets. - In all indicators, recipients exhibited much better performance than nonrecipients at the time of support. - In most performance indicators, recipients stand lower than non-recipients in terms of growth. The former even posted negative growth in operating profit and R&D investment. - This study estimated the causal effects using the two-step approach which integrates the nonparametric matching method and parametric regression model. - The government's R&D support contributed to SMEs' debt and equity financing, and firms expanded their investment in capabilities/ assets such as intellectual properties, relational assets, tangible assets and human capital. - Using the funding, firms invested more in capabilities/ assets, but it did not lead to improving the value added, operating profit and sales growth. - Firms with high growth prospects were selected as recipients in a smaller proportion while those with low growth prospects were selected as recipients in a larger proportion, making the value added growth of recipients lower than the average. - Estimation of the heterogenous causal effects on the value added increments found a positive effect only in the top four deciles. - If the support given to those with negative treatment effect was redistributed, this could double the positive effect. - In keeping pace with the flexibility in corporate R&D practices, the government needs to explore an operating system in which an active exchange of feedback takes place between R&D experiments and market verification. - This study suggests reforming the existing recipient selection practice which is solely based on the qualitative evaluation by technology experts, and promoting the use of the predictive model and a phased expansion of policy experiments. - Evaluations should target economic performance, not publications, IP rights and R&D amount, and a selection model should be developed to optimize the evaluation results. - In accordance to risks associated with the respective stages of R&D and commercialization, the government needs to choose the most suitable financing methods among grants, equity investment and loan support. - More free contests should be offered.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Sungho, 2018. "Government R&D Support for SMEs: Policy Effects and Improvement Measures," KDI Focus 89, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kdifoc:89
    DOI: 10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2018.89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/200890/1/kdi-focus-89.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2018.89?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sabrina T. Howell, 2017. "Financing Innovation: Evidence from R&D Grants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1136-1164, April.
    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. Cho, Heejung & Ahn, Hyeongjin & Park, Eunil, 2024. "Data-driven analysis on the performance evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Esteban Pelayo Villarejo & Antoni Pastor Juste & Jakub Kruszelnicki, 2019. "Segmentation Techniques For Innovation Support Services," Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 24, pages 207-237, December.

    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. Lily Fang & Josh Lerner & Chaopeng Wu & Qi Zhang, 2023. "Anticorruption, Government Subsidies, and Innovation: Evidence from China," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4363-4388, August.
    2. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Peter Grajzl & Stjepan Srhoj & Jaka Cepec & Barbara Mörec, 2024. "A by-product of big government: the attenuating role of public procurement for the effectiveness of grants-based entrepreneurship policy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 895-916, March.
    4. Deng Xu & Yong Long, 2019. "The Impact of Government Subsidy on Renewable Microgrid Investment Considering Double Externalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Josh Lerner & Ramana Nanda, 2020. "Venture Capital's Role in Financing Innovation: What We Know and How Much We Still Need to Learn," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 237-261, Summer.
    6. Stephen G. Dimmock & Jiekun Huang & Scott J. Weisbenner, 2022. "Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your High-Skilled Labor: H-1B Lottery Outcomes and Entrepreneurial Success," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6950-6970, September.
    7. Silvia Dalla Fontana & Ramana Nanda, 2023. "Innovating to Net Zero: Can Venture Capital and Start-Ups Play a Meaningful Role?," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 79-105.
    8. Luo, Lianfa & Cheng, Zhiming & Ye, Qingqing & Cheng, Yanjun & Smyth, Russell & Yang, Zhiqing & Zhang, Le, 2024. "Nonmonetary awards and innovation: Evidence from winning China's Top Brand Contest," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Matteo Aquilina & Giulio Cornelli & Marina Sanchez del Villar, 2024. "Regulation, information asymmetries and the funding of new ventures," BIS Working Papers 1162, Bank for International Settlements.
    10. Magnus Henrekson & Anders Kärnä & Tino Sanandaji, 2022. "Schumpeterian entrepreneurship: coveted by policymakers but impervious to top-down policymaking," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 867-890, July.
    11. George A Shinkle & Jo-Ann Suchard, 2019. "Innovation in newly public firms: The influence of government grants, venture capital, and private equity," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(2), pages 248-281, May.
    12. Balila Acurio & Alessandro Tomarchio, 2024. "The Effects of Business Credit Support Programs: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," IHEID Working Papers 20-2024, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    13. Raphael Calel & Jonathan Colmer & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Matthieu Glachant, 2021. "Do carbon offsets offset carbon?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1808, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Fini, Riccardo & Perkmann, Markus & Kenney, Martin & Maki, Kanetaka M., 2023. "Are public subsidies effective for university spinoffs? Evidence from SBIR awards in the University of California system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    15. John Van Reenen, 2022. "Innovation and Human Capital Policy," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 61-83, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Lauren Lanahan & Daniel Armanios, 2018. "Does More Certification Always Benefit a Venture?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 931-947, October.
    17. David Popp & Jacquelyn Pless & Ivan Haščič & Nick Johnstone, 2020. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Energy Sector," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 175-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Hünermund, Paul & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2019. "Estimating the causal effect of R&D subsidies in a pan-European program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 115-124.
    19. Unsal, Omer & Houston, Reza, 2024. "R&D grants and medical innovation," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    20. Kong, Dongmin & Zhang, Bohui & Zhang, Jian, 2022. "Higher education and corporate innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    More about this item

    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:zbw:kdifoc:89. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/kdiiikr.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.