The relationship between R&amp;D collaboration, subsidies and R&amp;D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany

Czarnitzki, Dirk; Ebersberger, Bernd; Fier, Andreas

doi:10.1002/jae.992

Cited by 387 publications

(275 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

253

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Van Ophem et al (2001) find that firms participating in research partnerships file more patents than firms focusing on internal R&D. Branstetter and Sakakibara (2002) find similar results for firms in government-sponsored research consortia in Japan. Czarnitzki and Fier (2003) and Czarnitzki et al (2007) show that collaborating firms in Germany are more likely to patent than non-collaborating firms and Hottenrott and Lopes-Bento (2014b) argue that the type of alliance may affect the ability and the incentives to patent, i.e., patent quality and quantity, differently.…”

Section: Gains From Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing?

Hottenrott

Lopes-Bento

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore repeatedly stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2,735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, we also observe that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted-U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two-thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.

show abstract

Section: Gains From Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing?

Hottenrott

Lopes-Bento

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comparison of different innovative support schemes -such as between Finland and Germany in Czarnitzki et al (2007) -also shows effects of public innovation support on R&D activity similar to those mentioned in section 2.2. Clausen (2009: 242) distinguishes between 'far from the market' (research) and 'close to the market' (development), concluding that support 'far from the market' stimulates private R&D more strongly and with a higher social rate of return (Clausen 2009: 251).…”

Section: Effectiveness Measures Of Public Supportmentioning

confidence: 53%

Effectiveness of Public Innovation Support in Europe. Does Public Support Foster Turnover, Employment and Labour Productivity?

Becker

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. With these three factors, this paper expands the analysis of effectiveness of public innovation support, evaluating the supported companies regarding competitiveness in Europe. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor mayAn overview on the existing landscape of public innovation support within the EU is provided in the first part of section two, which shows that the vast majority of twenty European countries offer either subsidies or tax cuts and subsidies for private R&D investment. Nonetheless, in terms of those countries using both instruments simultaneously, differences in the relation become visible (see Busom et al. 2012: 38).3 Additionality of public innovation support in EuropeCzarnitzki et al. ( ), Duguet (2004 and Grossman et al. (1994: 37-8) Busom (2000: 133) for Spain and Görg and Strobl (2007: 17)) for Ireland stress that crowdingout can be ruled out at least for several companies -e.g. domestic firms that received small grants in Ireland -while these two studies do not completely rule out crowding-out. Krohmer's (2010: 51) meta-analysis of 57 studies focusing on R&D support in Germany also shows no general crowding-out of private investments. Thus, this paper assumes at least partial additionality and at most partial crowding-out in the EU. A recent study by Radicic and Pugh (2013: 18) shows that public institutions face a selection problem, which reduces the positive effect of public innovation support. Public institutions have a tendency towards a 'picking the winner' strategy to evade information problems about the firms applying for innovation support, as Cantner and Kösters (2012: 932-3) outline. These factors reduce additionality and thus lead to a greater degree of crowding-out.Nonetheless, regarding additionality, the empirical results in Europe present a clear picture that public innovation support induces additional private innovative activities and crowding-out is at least not a general problem.3 Despite not always being synonymously used, for this study R&D spending and innovation spending can be while he highlights a positive effect at the industry level, the observations of one period had to be removed as outliers before finding a positive effect.SMEs particularly benefit from industry-specific R&D support (Maliranta 2000a: 117). Job creation is only supported for private R&D, while the effect for publicly-financed R&D is 'ambiguous ' (Maliranta 2000a: 117). A recent paper by Pajarinen and Rouvinen (2014) 4 summarizes that ...

show abstract

“…In addition, fostering cooperation with research institutions is a very frequent objective of public policy and a relevant factor in the eligibility criteria for R&D projects, as has been shown by empirical analysis (Czarnitzki et al, 2007;Huergo and Trenado, 2010) and also by the results of this paper (see Table A.2 in the Appendix).…”

Section: Public Subsidies Randd Projects and Human Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 56%

The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition

Afcha

García‐Quevedo

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we examine the impact of subsidies granted at national and regional levels on a set of R&D employment variables and we specifically seek to identify the existence of additional effects of these public subsidies on the R&D human resources of firms. We begin by assessing the effects of public funds on private R&D expenditure and on the number of R&D employees, and then focus on the impact of these funds on the composition of human resources engaged in R&D classified by occupation and level of education.The data used are from the Spanish Technological Innovation Panel for the period 2006-2011. To control for selection bias and endogeneity, a combination of non-parametric matching techniques are used. Our results show that R&D subsidies increase the number of R&D employees but no contemporaneous increase is found in the average level of qualification of R&D staff members in subsidized firms. Nevertheless, in the subsequent years there is a positive effect on the recruitment of PhD holders. The effects of public support are heterogeneous and are dependent on the source of the subsidy and the firms' characteristics.Keywords: R&D subsidies, R&D employment, matching estimators, technology policy. JEL Codes: O38, J24, H25, C14. Acknowledgements:We are very grateful for the suggestions from two anonymous referees that were very useful in improving the paper. We would also like to thank D. Czarnitzki, J. G. Díaz-Gamarra, M. Mediavilla and F. Todeschini for valuable comments.2

show abstract

The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany

Cited by 387 publications

References 56 publications

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing?

Effectiveness of Public Innovation Support in Europe. Does Public Support Foster Turnover, Employment and Labour Productivity?

The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About