The Impact of Public Funding to Private R&D: Evidence from Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24197/st.2.2024.40-70Keywords:
Impact assessment; public subsidies; business R&D; innovation; policy evaluationAbstract
The paper analyses the effects of public subsidies to private R&D in Spain. We carried out an evaluation assessment of the program aid of the Centre for the Development for Industrial Technology (CDTI) from 2015 to 2020. CDTI is the main public agency in Spain that grants public support for firms to carry out R&D projects. We combine information on public grants from CDTI with the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC) that integrates information from the survey on innovation and R&D activities of companies (Innovation Survey). The sample is an unbalanced panel containing 57,988 observations of which 9,116 (16%) correspond to beneficiary companies. We use a mixed approach of Differences-in-Differences with propensity score matching (DD-PSM) in the common support to control for some of the biases that occur when analysing causal effects. We find that public support has positive effects on firms’ R&D resources (i.e. internal R&D investment and job creation) - input additionality- and cooperation -behavioural additionality. However, the impact of public support on firms’ technological outputs varies importantly across sectors, having a positive effect limited to traditional-oriented sectors.
Downloads
References
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factor, edited by R. Nelson, 609–626. National Bureau of Economic Research: Princeton University Press.
Bakucs, Z., Fertő, I, Varga, Z. & Benedek. (2018). Impact of European Union development subsidies on Hungarian regions.” European Planning Studies, 26(6), 1121–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1437394
Barajas, A., Huergo, E. & Moreno, L. (2017). Public Support to Business R&D and the Economic Crisis: Spanish Evidence. MPRA Paper No. 81529. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81529/1/MPRA_paper_81529.pdf
Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M. (2000). Evaluation Methods for Non-Experimental Data. Fiscal Studies, 21(4), 427–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
CDTI. (2018). Informe de monitorización CDTI. Proyectos de investigación y desarrollo en fase de comercialización. CDTI. https://www.cdti.es/recursos/publicaciones/archivos/26165_1971972018113258.pdf
CDTI. (2020). Informe anual 2019. https://www.cdti.es/recursos/publicaciones/archivos/40738_161016102020175253.pdf
Cerulli, G. (2015). Econometric Evaluation of Socio-Economic Programs: Theory and Applications (Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, 49). Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-46405-2
Cummins, S., Flint, E. & Matthews, S. A. (2014). New Neighborhood Grocery Store Increased Awareness Of Food Access But Did Not Alter Dietary Habits Or Obesity. Health Affairs, 33(2), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0512
Cunningham, P., Gök, A. & Laredo, P. (2013). The impact of direct support to R&D and innovation in firms. Nesta Working Paper No. 13/3. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_impact_of_direct_support_to_rd_and_innovation_in_firms.pdf
Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2017). Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26(1–2), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202514
Czarnitzki, D., & Hussinger. K. (2004). The Link between R&D Subsidies, R&D Spending and Technological Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.575362
David, P. A., Hall, B. H. & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00087-6
De No, J., Molero, J. & Fernández-Zubieta. A. (2018). Análisis de los recursos destinados a I+D+i (Política de Gasto 46) contenidos en los Presupuestos Generales del Estado aprobados para el año 2018. COSCE. https://www.cosce.org/pdf/informeCOSCE_PGE2018_Aprobados.pdf
European Commission (2003). Raising EU R&D Intensity: Improving the Effectiveness of the Mix of Public Support Mechanisms for Private Sector Research and Development. European Commission, Brussels. ISBN 92-8945578-0
Ferraresi, M., Migali, G. & Rizzo, L. (2018). Does intermunicipal cooperation promote efficiency gains? Evidence from Italian municipal unions. Journal of Regional Science, 58(5): 1017–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12388
Fernández-Zubieta, A. & Zcharewicz, T. (2016). RIO Country Report 2015: Spain. JRC. EUR 27849 EN; doi:10.2791/465255
García Sánchez, A., & Molero, J. (2010). Factores que afectan a la innovación: dinamismo tecnológico de los sectores y tipo de innovación. In Análisis sobre ciencia e innovación en España, edited by L. Sanz Menéndez and L. Cruz Castro, pp. 474–498. Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT).
García Sánchez, A., Molero, J. & Rama, R. (2016). Are ‘the best’ foreign subsidiaries cooperating for innovation with local partners? The case of an intermediate country. Science and Public Policy, 43(4), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv057
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H. & Todd, P. (1998). Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65(2), 261–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937x.00044
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H. & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching As an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 64(4), 605–654. https://doi.org/10.2307/2971733
Heckman, J. J., Lalonde, R. J. & Smith, J. A. (1999). The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In Handbook of labor economics (1865-2097). Elsevier.
Huergo, E., Trenado, M. & Ubierna, A. (2009). Impacto de los créditos blandos en el gasto en I+D empresarial. CDTI. https://www.cdti.es/recursos/publicaciones/archivos/6401_1313201012555.pdf
Huergo, E., Trenado, M. & Ubierna. A. (2016). The impact of public support on firm propensity to engage in R&D: Spanish experience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.011
Ibanez, M., & Blackman, A. (2016). Is Eco-Certification a Win–Win for Developing Country Agriculture? Organic Coffee Certification in Colombia. World Development, 82, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.004
Lichtenberg, F. R. (1988). The Private R&D Investment Response to Federal Design and Technical Competitions. The American Economic Review, 78(3), 550–559. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809152
Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124
Méndez, F., Sepúlveda, F. & Valdés, N. (2016). Legalization and human capital accumulation. Journal of Population Economics, 29(3), 721–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0585-0
Molero, J., & Garcia, A. (2008). The innovative activity of foreign subsidiaries in the Spanish Innovation System: An evaluation of their impact from a sectoral taxonomy approach. Technovation, 28(11), 739–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.005
OECD (2006). Government R&D Funding and Company Behaviour: Measuring Behavioural Additionality. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264025851-en.
Olitsky, N. H., & Cosgrove, S. B. (2016). The better blend? Flipping the principles of microeconomics classroom. International Review of Economics Education, 21, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2015.10.004
Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2683903
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Sianesi, B. (2004). An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023723
Veugelers, R. (2016). The European Union’s growing innovation divide. Bruegel Policy Contribution. Bruegel Policy Contribution. No. 2016/08. https://www.bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/pc_2016_08.pdf
Villa, J. M. (2016). Diff: Simplifying the Estimation of Difference-in-differences Treatment Effects. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 16(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1601600108
Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2601030
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ana Fernandez-Zubieta, Antonio García Sánchez, José Molero Zayas, José Molero Zayas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Sociología y tecnociencia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The journal allows the authors to retain publishing rights. Authors may reprint their articles in other media without having to request authorization, provided they indicate that the article was originally published in Sociología y Tecnociencia.