State incentives for innovation, star scientists and jobs: Evidence from biotech

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in ABSTRACTWe evaluate the effects of state-provided financial incentives for biotech companies, which are part of a growing trend of placed-based policies designed to spur innovation clusters. We estimate that the adoption of subsidies for biotech employers by a state raises the number of star biotech scientists in that state by about 15 percent over a three-year period. A 10 percent decline in the user cost of capital induced by an increase in R&D tax incentives raises the number of stars by 22 percent. Most of the gains are due to the relocation of star scientists to adopting states, with limited effect on the productivity of incumbent scientists already in the state. The gains are concentrated among private sector inventors. We uncover little effect of subsidies on academic researchers, consistent with the fact that their incentives are unaffected. Our estimates indicate that the effect on overall employment in the biotech sector is of comparable magnitude to that of star scientists. Consistent with a model where workers are fairly mobile across states, we find limited effects on salaries in the industry. We uncover large effects on employment in the nontraded sector due to a sizable multiplier effect, with the largest impact on employment in construction and retail. Finally, we find mixed evidence of a displacement effect on states that are geographically close, or states that are economically close as measured by migration flows. JEL Classification Codes: J2, H2

Lights, Camera, but No Action? Tax and Economic Development Lessons From State Motion Picture Incentive Programs

“…Each state-year dyad is a discrete observation for which the continuous dependent variable is regressed on the explanatory variables and controls. As in studies of state research and development tax credits (Wu, 2008) and biotechnology incentives (Moretti & Wilson, 2013), unit-level fixed effect regression models are customary for analyzing panels that exhaust the population and/or there is a need to control for unobserved unit heterogeneity.…”

Cultural districts and economic development in American cities

“…And if it is human capital that really drives growth, that can be subsidized directly. Moretti and Wilson (2014) find that taxbased incentives for R&D have a significant effect on luring biotech 'stars', with large multiplier effects in construction and retail jobs.…”

Agglomeration, Tax Differentials, and the Mobility of Professional Athletes

“…Kleven, Landais, and Saez (2010) found evidence that top tax rates had strong mobility effects on elite European footballers and reported indications of sorting effects of highperformance players in low-tax countries. Moretti and Wilson (2014) explored the effect of tax policy on the migration of star scientists and found that state tax rates and credits induce movement among that population, with credits having a stronger ''pull effect'' (the policy in the destination state) and tax rates having a strong ''push effect'' (the policy in the state of origin).…”