A comparative evaluation of regional subsidies for collaborative and individual R&D in small and medium-sized enterprises

We analyse whether public subsidies supporting collaborative research and development (R&D) projects in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are able to encourage persistent R&D investment and interorganisational networking more than subsidies supporting individual R&D projects. Adopting a counterfactual approach to policy evaluation, we compare subsidies for collaborative R&D and for individual R&D implemented in the same Italian region in the same period. Our findings suggest that, once public support is no longer available, the two subsidies have different effects on different types of SMEs. If the policymakers’ objective is to increase the number of R&D-performing SMEs over time, they should provide subsidies for collaborative R&D to firms with modest R&D experience. If their objective is to increase the amount of spontaneous R&D investment over time, they should target SMEs with some prior R&D experience, using either subsidy. Finally, if their objective is to induce SMEs to network with external organisations, subsidies for collaborative R&D projects should be preferred to subsidies for individual R&D projects.     

(International) R&D collaboration and SMEs: The effectiveness of targeted public R&D support schemes

This study analyses the impact and effectiveness of targeted public support for R&D investment at the firm level. We test whether the policy design aiming at incentivizing (international) collaboration and R&D in SMEs achieves input as well as output additionality. Our results show that the targeted public subsidies trigger R&D spending, especially so in internationally collaborating SMEs. We further evaluate the different impact of privately financed and publicly induced R&D investment on innovation performance. The results confirm that the publicly induced R&D is productive as it translates into marketable product innovations. While both types of R&D investments trigger significant output effects, the effect of policy-induced R&D investment on sales from market novelties is highest for international collaborators as well as for SMEs.     

Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners

This paper examines the relationship between (outside-in) open innovation and the financial performance of R&D projects, drawing on a unique dataset that contains information on the open innovation practices, management and performance of 489 R&D projects of a large European multinational firm. We introduce two types of open innovation partnerships – science-based and market-based partnerships – and examine their relationships with project financial performance. In addition, we investigate whether the open innovation—project performance relationships are influenced by the way how R&D projects are managed. Our results show that R&D projects with open innovation partnerships are associated with a better financial performance providing that they are managed in the most suitable way. Market-based partnerships are positively correlated with project performance if a formal project management process is used; however these partnerships are associated with a lower performance for loosely managed projects. In contrast, science-based partnerships are associated with higher project revenues for loosely managed projects only.     

Working with distant researchers—Distance and content in university–industry interaction

This paper studies the role of geographic proximity for interaction on R&D, by exploring the special case of formalised university–industry interaction in the engineering sector. While numerous studies find that geographic proximity facilitates spillover effects between university and industry by utilising evidence from e.g. patenting and publishing activities, the geographical dimension is largely understudied in studies that report evidence from direct interaction. A series of interviews with R&D managers suggests that linkages in geographical proximity are more likely than distant linkages to generate impulses to innovation and create significant learning effects at the firm. Similarly, geographic proximate interaction is more likely to successfully contribute to R&D projects with short time to market. For long-term R&D projects, geographic proximity is generally seen as a less critical factor. A survey to 425 R&D managers in Swedish engineering firms provides evidence that supports these hypotheses.     

Public selection and financing of R&D cooperative projects: Credit versus subsidy funding

In this article we develop an analytical model of the selection process for R&D cooperative projects, to study the factors that motivate public project selection and corresponding funding, using two different financial instruments: subsidies and credits. For this purpose, we propose a three stage empirical strategy to analyse the differential individual effects of several factors on the decisions taken by the public agency. This analysis is based on project level data from cooperative R&D project calls under the Spanish PROFIT initiative, for the period 2000-2003. The main results show that the public agency uses the two financial instruments to address different objectives. First, some projects close to the market are well supported through credits, while basic research projects receive only selective support in the form of subsidies. Second, there is significant diversity in the selection and funding of technological areas. Third, regarding the explicit goal of fostering cooperation, the public agency selectively favours partnerships with universities and technology institutes through the award of subsidies. However, there seems to be less incentive for large consortia. Fourth, there are significant regional differences among financed projects and, also, our data show sharp yearly fluctuations.     

The synergy of corporate r&d and competitive strategies: An exploratory study in australian high-technology companies

This project examines how Australian high technology companies approach the synergy between corporate R&D and strategic management. Research hypotheses are tested empirically using the data collected from a number of Australian firms in three selected industrial sectors: information technology, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. The results suggest that the responding firms have been aware of the importance of integrating R&D decision making with corporate strategic management as well as the consistency between R&D and competitive strategies. In particular, the development of higher value-added products with a focus on a particular market segment has been stressed in directing corporate R&D programs and projects.     

Impact analysis for national R&D funding in science and technology using quantification method II

As the influences of science and technology on its national economy have increased, each country has devised various funding programs for research and development (R&D) projects. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the performance of such R&D projects. In most studies, the performances were measured in terms of an ordinal Likert scale, but they were treated as continuous variables. Much important information can be buried when a categorical Likert scale is treated as continuous variable. In this paper, we treat Likert scales as categorical and apply quantification method II to analyze the relationship between short- to mid-term performance factors and long-term impact factor of R&D projects. We apply the proposed approach to the survey data obtained from the Science and Technology Promotion Fund in Korea. The results of this paper are expected to contribute to a better understanding of the impact of R&D funding.     

A real options perspective on R&D portfolio diversification

This paper shows that the conditionality of investment decisions in R&D has a critical impact on portfolio risk, and implies that traditional diversification strategies should be reevaluated when a portfolio is constructed. Real option theory argues that research projects have conditional or option-like risk and return properties, and are different from unconditional projects. Although the risk of a portfolio always depends on the correlation between projects, a portfolio of conditional R&D projects with real option characteristics has a fundamentally different risk than a portfolio of unconditional projects. When conditional R&D projects are negatively correlated, diversification only slightly reduces portfolio risk. When projects are positively correlated, however, diversification proves more effective than conventional tools predict.     

Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective

The use of R&D grants as a policy instrument has been motivated by economic arguments of market failure. Neo-classical econometric studies have analysed the additionality of one Euro of subsidies on both the investments of companies in the R&D process and the output of that R&D process. More recently, behavioural additionality has been launched as a third form of additionality. In contrast to input and output additionality, behavioural additionality is related to changes in the processes that take place within the firm. In this paper, we analyse the determinants of the behavioural additionality of R&D grants. To explain the mechanism through which behavioural additionality is obtained, we use organizational learning theory as a guide to formulate our hypotheses. Hypotheses are tested using a telephone survey of 192 recipients of R&D grants provided by the IWT in Flanders in 2001–2004, matched to a sample of 84 firms that undertake innovation activities but which had never had a grant bid accepted. We find that congenital learning and interorganizational learning lead to increased behavioural additionality. However, these learning effects decrease with the number of subsidized projects that are undertaken by the company.     

The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: A study of Western European firms

This paper builds on agency and institutional theory to extend the analysis of the effects of ownership and control on R&D investments by considering the influence of different types of ownership and of institutional corporate governance systems. Our empirical analysis is based on a unique dataset of 1000 firms publicly-traded in six European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and the UK). Controlling for industry- and firm-level effects, our findings show that higher shareholding by families is negatively associated with R&D investment. Moreover, widely-held firms invest less in R&D in the United Kingdom than in Continental European countries, thus suggesting the existence of a greater pressure towards the reduction of R&D in market-based governance systems. The results are robust against possible sample selection biases due to firms’ discretional R&D disclosure.     

Dimensions of R&D location in the United States

R&D activities in the United States, as in other advanced economies, are geographically concentrated in certain types of locations. This study presents data on the location of four dimensions of R&D in the U.S.: industrial R&D laboratories, scientists and engineers engaged in R&D, scientists and engineers employed by the federal government, and research universities. Industrial R&D is much more concentrated in large urban areas than the other dimensions, and appears to locate more in response to the location of manufacturing activity than to the location of research universities and federal research facilities. The location of R&D employment, which includes government university, and industrial employees, is associated with facilities for all three types of R&D. Because of these factors, R&D in the U.S. is found on a significant per capita basis in 44 of 177 urban areas, most of them in the northeastern portion of the country. When two dimensions, industrial R&D laboratories and R&D employees, are combined as a measure of R&D concentration, the locational pattern is less clustered regionally. Ten urban areas in all regions of the U.S. are identified as important complexes of R&D. Since the location of R&D is a major indicator of comparative advantage for technological activities and the economic potential of urban regions, only a few areas of the U.S. are likely to remain important in the generation of innovations.     

Global human burden and official development assistance in health R&D: The role of medical absorptive capacity

We investigate country-level determinants of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in health R&D with a focus on levels and types of human suffering as well as levels and types of medical absorptive capacity. Using latest data from a range of sources and various tests on large numbers of countries in receipt of health R&D ODA, we find support for the central assertions that human burden has a direct positive impact on receipt of health R&D ODA and that medical absorptive capacity in the recipient country moderates this relationship. The relationship between human burden and health R&D ODA receipt does not hold for countries low in medical absorptive capacity. Additional analysis reveals: (1) medical absorptive capacity that involves regular patient contact has the strongest moderating effect on the burden – funding relationship, (2) receipt of health R&D ODA under low levels of medical absorptive capacity explained not by human burden but by small country bias, and (3) the importance of nurses to health R&D ODA in countries with high levels of human suffering and health R&D ODA but voids of doctors and clinical trials.     

Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling

This paper presents an empirical analysis of the determinants of research cooperation between firms and Public research organisations (PROs) for a sample of innovating small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The econometric analysis is based on the results of the KNOW survey carried out in seven EU countries during 2000. In contrast to earlier works that provide information about the importance of PROs’ research, we know the number of firm/PRO collaborative research and development (R&D) projects. This allows us to study the determinants of firm collaboration with PROs in terms of both the propensity of a firm to undertake R&D projects with a university (do they cooperate or not) and the extent of this collaboration (number of R&D projects). Two questions are addressed. Which firms cooperated with PROs? And what are the firm characteristics that might explain the number of R&D projects with PROs? The results of our analysis point to two major phenomena. First, the propensity to forge an agreement with an academic partner depends on the ‘absolute size’ of the industrial partner. Second the openness of firms to the external environment, as measured by their willingness to search, screen and signal, significantly affects the development of R&D projects with PROs. Our findings suggest that acquiring knowledge through the screening of publications and involvement in public policies positively affects the probability of signing an agreement with a PRO, but not the number of R&D projects developed. In fact, firms that outsource research and development, and patent to protect innovation and to signal competencies show higher levels of collaboration.     

Government R&D subsidies as a signal for private investors

Government subsidies for R&D are intended to promote projects with high returns to society but too little private returns to be beneficial for private investors. This may be caused by spillovers or a low appropriability rate. Apart from the direct funding of these projects, government grants may serve as a signal for good investments for private investors. We use a simple signaling model with different types of R&D projects to capture this phenomenon. The agency has a preference for basic research projects as they promise high expected social returns, while banks prefer applied research projects with high private returns. In a setup where the subsidy can only be used to distinguish between basic and applied research projects, government agency’s signal is not very helpful for banks. However, if the subsidy is accompanied by a quality signal, it can lead to increased or better selected private investments.     

Canadian R&D abroad management practices

In the 1980s, Canadian industrial R&D abroad has grown substantially. In 1995, R&D expenditures by Canadian affiliates, only in the United States, represented some US$1.4 billion and employed some 6300 persons. Nearly 60 Canadian-owned and -controlled corporations conduct overseas R&D, mostly in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia. Canadian corporations are performing commercial R&D abroad in order to support their manufacturing subsidiaries and to come closer to customers and markets. A secondary motivation is to hire skilled personnel, monitor foreign technological development and increase the inflow of new ideas into the corporation. They also chose friendly socio-political environments from a regulatory point of view. Technology transfer and adaptation to local markets is also an important mission of the foreign R&D establishment. Foreign R&D activities of Canadian firms are fairly decentralized and autonomous. Most of the foreign subsidiaries undertook R&D abroad before they were acquired by the Canadian corporation; also the number of Canadian managers was reduced and the R&D projects were usually decided in the affiliate. Three main types of expatriate R&D were found: a majority of the subsidiaries were producing goods in the same or related industries as in Canada (such as machines, transportation equipment or housing equipment). A second group of firms were vertically integrated firms, that conducted process research in Canada and advanced materials and final products research abroad, closer to the markets for this type of goods; they were active in the chemical and metal industries. Only one truly global corporation was found, with an international division of labor among its many foreign laboratories. The degree of autonomy varied across the three types of expatriate R&D units. In the last 10 years, the internationalization of industrial research and development has increased very rapidly. Foreign-affiliated corporations operating in the United States represented some 9.3% of all company-funded R&D in that country in 1987, and close to 18% in 1995 (Dalton and Serapio, in this issue). Similarly, foreign R&D expenditures by US-affiliated companies abroad have more than tripled. Canadian industrial R&D abroad has grown at a similar pace. It now includes over 100 research facilities owned by some 60 Canadian corporations, with subsidiaries in the United States, western Europe, Japan, Australia, and several developing countries (China, Brazil, India, Mexico, and Turkey). However, little is known about the characteristics of this foreign R&D: missions, managerial practices, budgets or innovative activity. This study is the first to present original data from a survey of these facilities, complemented by secondary material from annual reports and the financial and technical press. It follows a previous study of Canadian patents abroad, which concluded that diversification into related activities was the overseas strategy of Canadian multinational corporations (MNCs) with foreign R&D activities [Niosi, J., 1997. The globalization of Canadian R&D, Management International Review 37 (4) (in print).]. The first section of this paper presents (1) a short summary of some relevant literature on the management of foreign R&D, (2) the design of the study, (3) the results, and (4) a comparison of theories with Canadian data. It offers conclusions about the existence of three distinctive types of internationalization in Canadian R&D, each with different strategies and outcomes.     

Is a higher rate of R&D tax credit a panacea for low levels of R&D in disadvantaged regions?

This paper studies the impact of R&D spending on output as well as forecasting the impact of a regionally enhanced R&D tax credit on the ‘user cost’ (or price) of R&D expenditure and subsequently the demand for R&D. The example we use of a ‘disadvantaged’ region is Northern Ireland (partly because it has the lowest levels of R&D spending in the UK, and partly because the necessary data is available for this region). We find that in the long run, R&D spending has a mostly positive impact on output across various manufacturing industries. In addition, plants with a zero R&D stock experience significant one-off negative productivity effects. As to the adjustment of R&D in response to changes in the ‘user cost’, our results suggest a rather slow adjustment over time, and a long-run own-price elasticity of around −1.4 for Northern Ireland. We also find that to have a major impact on R&D spending in the Province, the R&D tax credit would need to be increased substantially; this would be expensive in terms of the net exchequer cost.     

Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from multi-country data

This study aims to evaluate whether firms located in clusters invest more intensively in research and development (R&D) than their non-clustered counterparts. Specifically, it proposes a model of firm R&D and tests empirically its implications for the effect of being located in a cluster on firm R&D intensity. The key ideas underlying the theory are as follows: (1) due either to natural excludability or to a high degree of stickiness of R&D-opportunity-bearing technological knowledge, geographical proximity per se is limited in the (automatic) spillover of knowledge with promising R&D opportunities to nearby firms; (2) geographical proximity may, however, help enhance the effectiveness or efficiency of knowledge exchange through market mechanisms (e.g., through contract R&D, R&D collaboration); (3) potential advantages (or disadvantages) in firm R&D of being located in a cluster also depend on the degree of asymmetry in technological competence among firms located in the cluster. The key ideas are supported by an empirical analysis of a multi-industry, multi-country data set compiled by the World Bank. In particular, the results show that being located in a cluster per se actually has a negative effect on firm R&D intensity, which is in contrast to the conventional wisdom of pure or automatic localized knowledge spillovers, as far as firm R&D intensity is concerned.     

R&D synergy between local and foreign-owned enterprises in post-communist economies

This study examines how internal research and development (R&D), external knowledge acquisition, and R&D contracted with other companies interact in local and foreign-owned enterprises in post-communist economies. A large sample of firm-level data from the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) across 26 post-communist countries (including European Union (EU) members and non-EU states of Eastern Europe, Caucasian countries, and Central Asian countries) and country-level data from the Global Innovation Index and the International Property Rights Index were used. The findings show that enterprises with majority foreign ownership are relatively more likely to acquire external R&D. We demonstrate that the R&D behavior of enterprises with majority foreign ownership and local firms are interrelated, that is, we find a synergy effect. According to the results, decisions on internal R&D and the purchase of external knowledge for enterprises with majority foreign ownership are similar to those of local firms. However, enterprises with foreign ownership contract R&D with other companies more often if local firms conduct internal R&D. These results indicate the presence of knowledge spillover and cross-learning effects in both types of enterprises in post-communist countries. Finally, we find that the national innovation environment is not significant for the R&D intensity of enterprises with majority foreign ownership, which suggests their high dependence on the parent structures of multinational enterprises.     

Measuring the economic benefits from R&D: improvements in the MMI model of the United Kingdom National Measurement System

The benefits and priorities of public funding of R&D programmes are the subject of considerable research and debate and a number of methodologies have been suggested which might allow us to arbitrate on the issues involved. This paper looks at one method that is actually used in practice to evaluate and rank publicly funded R&D programmes in the UK. We describe the improvements that have been made to the mapping measurement impact (MMI) model, which is used by the UK Department of Trade and Industry to assess the economic benefit to industry of different research projects funded as part of the United Kingdom National Measurement System. The model has been in use for more than 5 years as a means to compare publicly funded R&D programmes. It allows evaluation of their benefit and prioritisation of future funding schemes and has potential for wider application in other areas of public R&D investment both inside and outside the UK.