lessons from the evaluation of two italian enterprise support programmes daniele bondonio alberto...
TRANSCRIPT
LESSONS FROM THE EVALUATION OF TWO ITALIAN ENTERPRISE
SUPPORT PROGRAMMESDaniele Bondonio
Alberto Martiniet al.
The two programmesOne national, targeted to all firms but
focused on the SouthOne regional (the combination of 29
measures in Piemonte, for which only SMEs were eligible)
PIEMONTETorino
FiatHoly Shroud
2006 WinterOlympics
Home of the 2012 CIE Summer School (Aug 30-Sep 9)Home of the 2010 CIE Summer School at PRACATINAT
A nation-wide programme targeted to industrial firms in disadvantaged areas, to support investments in physical
capital, providing non-repayable grants
No limit on firm size, but mostly small firms50% of grant recipients < 10 employees, only 1% > 500
Average grant size € 420,000
Total outlays € 2.6 billion in 2000-2006
Law 488/92
multitude of support measures for SMEs in Piemonte About 10,000 recipients
1500 capital grants (14%)7800 interest-rate grants (75%) 1000 soft-loans (10%)
Average equivalent value of subsidies = € 10,600Total resources spent in 2005-09 = € 120 million
29 ways to help SMEs in PIEMONTE
What are the effects of these programmmes on employment, sales and investment?
Which difference does public support make for different firms?
Which evidence can be trusted for future decisions?
Used a rigorous approach
Jobs due to the subsidy =
change in employment among subsidized firms−
change in employment among subsidized firms if they had not been subsidized
(the latter is known as counterfactual, and can never be observed)
IN PRACTICE WHAT IS DONE IS TO FIND A PROXY FOR THE COUNTERFACTUAL
Jobs due to the subsidy
=change in employment among subsidized firms
-change in employment among NON subsidized firms THAT ARE “IDENTICAL” TO THE SUBSIDIZED FIRMS
IDENTICAL ……. VERY SIMILAR …….. WITH THE SAME OBSERVABLE CHARACTERSITICS
Law 488 used rankings based on five indicators, one of which was
“jobs to be created”
Rejected and accepted firms share the same willingness to invest, and the residual differences can be more easily
eliminated through matching techniques
So we used matching techniques on applicants firmsusing outcome data provided by ISTAT
AND WE GOT SOME INTERESTING RESULTS
Let’s do the official calculationsFunds disbursed for Law 488 € 2,600,000,000“target” jobs (TARGET “ACHIEVED”) 82,000 jobs
Cost per job € 31,700
Number of firms subsidized = 6,189Impact of subsidy = 1.82 additional jobs per firm
Number of jobs really created = 11,236
Cost per job really due to the subsidy = € 231,207
OUR CALCULATIONS
The results are very different for the 29 programs for SME
1.82
232, 000
Law 488
Is this enough evidence to prove that
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL?
CERTAINLY NOT YET!
Does the size of 488 grants matter?
Is it the size of the firm to make a difference?
capital grants
interest-rate grants
soft-loans
WHICH ONE IS MORE COST- EFFECTIVE?
The ways to help SMEs in PIEMONTE
POLICY IMPLICATION: MAKE NO PRESENTS, HELP THEM TO GET CHEAPER FINANCING (EITHER WITH LOANS
EITHER PAYING THEIR INTEREST COST)
AND THE WINNERS ARE
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTSHolding everything else constant…..• Large grants are less cost-effective than smaller grants• Grants to large firms are not cost effective • Re-payable assistance is more effective than capital grants
Results suggest that credit market imperfections for SMEs are the main issue that may justify public intervention
No evidence of effect on the quality of the jobs generated by the subsidies
Sales and investment results follow the same pattern of employment
(albeit with some additional volatility due to data quality)
page
SHOWS THESE RESULTS TO THE POLICY MAKER
HO HO HO HOLY SHIT!HO HO HO HOLY SHIT!
FOR CHRISTMAS WE WILL GET NO PRESENTS,
ONLY SOFT LOANS,
AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REALLY NAUGHTY
WILL GET ITALIAN GOVERNMENT BONDS
HO HO HO EUR HO