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.

A comparative evaluation of regional subsidies for collaborative and individual R&D in small and medium-sized enterprises / Caloffi, Annalisa; Mariani, Marco; Rossi, Federica; Russo, Margherita. - In: RESEARCH POLICY. - ISSN 0048-7333. - 47:8(2018), pp. 1437-1447. [10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.022]

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

Rossi, Federica
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Russo, Margherita
Membro del Collaboration Group
2018

Abstract

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.
2018
47
8
1437
1447
A comparative evaluation of regional subsidies for collaborative and individual R&D in small and medium-sized enterprises / Caloffi, Annalisa; Mariani, Marco; Rossi, Federica; Russo, Margherita. - In: RESEARCH POLICY. - ISSN 0048-7333. - 47:8(2018), pp. 1437-1447. [10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.022]
Caloffi, Annalisa; Mariani, Marco; Rossi, Federica; Russo, Margherita
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Caloffi et al 2018 title text tables.pdf

Open access

Descrizione: Caloffi et al 2018 title text tables post referaggio
Tipologia: Versione dell'autore revisionata e accettata per la pubblicazione
Dimensione 348.73 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
348.73 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1161591
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 32
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact