outline of the presentation
DESCRIPTION
Symposium on Business Dynamics and Innovation: The effects of agglomeration economies Barcelona, 8 October 2008. “Assessing the impact of public funds on private R&D. A comparative analysis between state and regional subsidies ” Sergio Afcha and Jose Garcia-Quevedo, University of Barcelona. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Symposium on Business Dynamics and Innovation: The
effects of agglomeration economies
Barcelona, 8 October 2008“Assessing the impact of public funds on private R&D. A comparative analysis between state and regional subsidies”
Sergio Afcha and Jose Garcia-Quevedo,University of Barcelona
Outline of the presentation Motivation: increasing importance of
regional innovation policies Objectives: evaluation of public policies Data and descriptive statistics Methodology and results Conclusions and future lines of
research
In the last two decades increasing interest has been putting in the relationship between geographical location and innovation (Storper, 1997; Audretsch&Feldman, 1999).
Emergence of different concepts about industrial agglomeration: Clusters, Industrial districts, Innovative Millieu, competitive regions etc. Has contributed to the awareness of regional dimension is a suitable level to promote innovation activity.
More active role of regional actors (Government, Institutions, firms)
Regional governments: specific regional policies in order to promote regional innovation systems.
However... There is few evidence about: Evaluation studies in innovation policy at
regional level, and comparisons between regional and central government interventions
This work compares central and regional policies promoting R&D activities:
I. Analyzing determinants (firms characteristics) of receiving subsidies, both at regional and central level.
II. Quantifying the effect of central and regional R&D subsidies on firms’ Innovation effort (financial additionality).
Data and descriptive statistics
Data: Survey on Business Strategy, ESEE (Encuesta de estrategias empresariales/FUNEP).
Period: 1998-2005.
Sample: Innovative manufacturing firms. R&D >0.
Non subsidized firms
Subsidized firms at regional level
Subsidized firms at central level
Year250 employees or less
More than 250 employees
250 employees or less
More than 250 employees
250 employees or less
More than 250 employees
1998 1.59 1.00 3.41 2.38 4.70 2.191999 1.58 1.10 3.80 2.19 5.61 2.932000 1.95 0.85 3.61 1.31 4.87 1.642001 1.89 1.10 3.51 3.40 4.03 3.702002 1.50 0.92 4.19 2.40 5.28 2.962003 1.91 1.11 3.75 1.99 4.74 3.102004 1.59 0.99 2.03 2.70 3.79 4.142005 1.77 1.31 5.16 2.49 5.44 3.10Total 1.71 1.04 3.91 2.31 4.92 2.87
Innovative Effort
Central RegionalPublic Subsidies state/regional Coef. Std. Err. Z Coef. Std. Err. ZCOOPERATIONJoint Ventures 0.21 0.12 1.77* 0.18 0.13 1.36Coop. Univ. and Tech. Centers. 0.41 0.10 4.05*** 0.50 0.11 4.38***Coop. with Customers -0.11 0.09 -1.23 0.02 0.10 0.26Coop. With Competitors 0.18 0.13 1.32 -0.23 0.15 -1.37Coop. with Providers 0.23 0.09 2.43*** -0.06 0.10 -0.58Part. EU projects 0.72 0.27 2.60*** -0.05 0.27 -0.21RRHHRecruitments of Univ. Graduates and Engineers 0.23 0.09 2.42*** 0.33 0.10 3.10***Recruits personnel with R&D experience. -0.08 0.08 -0.96 -0.09 0.09 -0.98INNOVATIONInnov. New functions -0.00 0.10 -0.07 0.05 0.10 0.54Innov. New materials 0.11 0.11 1.00 -0.05 0.12 -0.42Innov. New components 0.11 0.12 0.91 -0.05 0.13 -0.43Innov. New design -0.11 0.11 -1.05 0.15 0.11 1.36Innovation Indicators 0.03 0.08 0.40 -0.02 0.09 -0.29Tech. Export-Tech. Imports 50.74e-07 40.60e-06 0.12 40.12e-07 50.99e-06 0.07Total Nº of patents 0.04 0.02 2.42*** -0.01 0.02 -0.63Capital Participation in Innovative firms -0.06 0.11 -0.54 0.15 0.12 1.23PUBLIC FINANCESState/Regional subsidies 0.58 0.11 5.20*** 0.58 0.10 5.57***Others subsidies -0.05 0.22 -0.23 0.26 0.22 1.20Innovative effortt-1 0.02 0.01 1.86* 0.000 0.01 0.08Public Subsidiest-1 10.48 0.08 16.64*** 10.71 0.10 17.03***FIRMS CHARACTERISTICSAge 0.0008 0.001 0.50 -0.00 0.00 -1.41<250 emp. -0.26 0.10 -2.54*** 0.18 0.10 1.69*Industry Med-High 0.24 0.09 2.70*** -0.09 0.09 -0.94Nº of competitors 0.04 0.04 1.13 -0.01 0.04 -0.33% Foreign Capital -0.001 0.0009702 -1.38 -0.00 0.00 -0.03REGIONALS DUMMIESCatatonia 0.01 0.10 0.17 - - -Madrid 0.18 0.12 1.49 - - -Basque Country -0.04 0.13 -0.36 - - -Times dummies Included Included
Nºof Obs.=2213 Nºof Obs.=2213LR chi2(38)=787.42Prob>chi2=0.0000Pseudo R2=0.41
LR chi2(38) =566.65Prob> chi2=0.000Pseudo R2=0.3669
Results (Probit estimations)
If coordination works, relevant variables should not be exactly the same in the Probit regressions.
Coincidence in significant variables could be indicating duplication of goals at different levels of government.
Summary of results: firm characteristics
Central Subsidies Regional SubsidiesSign Variables
COOPERATION
Equal sign
Cooperative agreements with Universities and Technological centers (+)
Cooperative agreements with Universities and Technological
centers (+)
Significant in only one regression
Joint ventures (+) Cooperation with providers
(vertical cooperation) (+) Participation in UE Projects (+)
HUMAN RESOURCES Equal sign Recent recruitment of
University graduates and engineers (+)
Recent recruitment of University graduates and engineers (+)
R&DSignificant in only one
regression Total patents (+)
FINANCIAL
Significant in only one regression Innovative Effort in t -1 (+)
Equal sign Subsidies from another level of
government (regional)(+) Central subsidies in t-1(+)
Subsidies from another level of government (central) (+)
Regional subsidies in t-1 (+)
FIRMS CHARACTERISTICSDifferent sign More than 250 employees (-) Less than 250 employees
(+)Significant in only one
regression Medium–High Tech. Industry (+)
Evaluation of central and regional R&D subsidies (additional effects?)
Non parametrical Technique: Propensity score Matching. Nearest neighbor matching algorithm.
Purpose: Establish a valid control group in order to compare innovative effort performed by subsidized and non subsidized firms.
Control Group: Innovative firms without subsidies.
Results (Evaluation)
CENTRAL REGIONAL
ATT1 (Z-Value) 0.56 (1.7)* 0.66 (1.08)
ATT2 (Z-Value) 0.87(3.59)*** 0.53(1.38)
Although some common patterns, evidence of differences (firm characteristics) in the participation in regional and national innovation policy. Crowding out effect is rejected for central subsidies. Evidence of additionality (Herrera&Heijs, 2007; Fernandez&Pazó, 2008;) ATT for regional subsidies are not statistically significant. Regional effects should be estimated by region in order to take in account regional differences. Regional innovation policy: Need to analyse other additional effects (behavioral)