Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Are R&D subsidies provided optimally? Evidence from a simulated agency-firm stochastic dynamic game

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

By means of a simulated funding-agency/supported-firm stochastic dynamic game, this paper firstly shows that not only the level of R&D performed by firms is underprovided (as maintained by traditional literature on the subject), but also the level of the subsidy provided by the funding (public) agency (used to correct exactly for the corporate R&D shortage). This event is due to externalities generated by the agency-firm strategic relationship. Two versions of the model are simulated and compared: one assuming rival behaviors between companies and agency, and one associated to the Social-planner (or cooperative) strategy. Secondly, the paper looks at what “welfare” implications are associated to different degree of funding effect’s persistency. Three main conclusions are drawn: (i) the relative quota of subsidy to R&D is undersized in the rival compared to the Social-planner model; (2) the rivalry strategy generates distortions that favor the agency compared to firms; (3) when passing from less persistent to more persistent R&D additionality/crowding-out effect, the lower the bias the greater the variance is and vice versa. As for the management of R&D funding policies, all the elements favouring greater collaboration between agency and firm objectives can help current R&D support to reach its social optimum.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.ceris.cnr.it/ceris/workingpaper/2010/WP_10_10_CERULLI.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) in its series CERIS Working Paper with number 201011.

as in new window
Length: 26 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:csc:cerisp:201011

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Via Real Collegio, 30 10024 - Moncalieri TO
Phone: +39-11.6824.911
Fax: +39-11.6824.966
Email:
Web page: http://www.ceris.cnr.it/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: R&D subsidies; Rivalry vs. cooperation; Dynamic-stochastic games; Simulations;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. M. Ishaq Nadiri, 1979. "Contributions and Determinants of Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S. Manufacturing Industries," NBER Working Papers 0360, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1997. "On two stage least squares estimation of the average treatment effect in a random coefficient model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 129-133, October.
  3. Angrist, J.D. & Imbens, G.W., 1992. "Average Causal Response with Variable Treatment Intensity," Papers 9234, Tilburg - Center for Economic Research.
  4. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "The Dynamics and Evolution of Industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 51-87.
  5. Giovanni Cerulli & Bianca Pot�, 2012. "The differential impact of privately and publicly funded R&D on R&D investment and innovation: the Italian case," Prometheus, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 113-149, March.
  6. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages S71-102, October.
  7. Wesley M Cohen & Richard R Nelson & John P Walsh, 2003. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not)," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000624, David K. Levine.
  8. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2002. "The Financing of Research and Development," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 35-51, Spring.
  9. Jan Fagerberg & Martin Srholec, 2007. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20071024, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
  10. Stephen Martin & John T. Scott, 1999. "The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation," CIE Discussion Papers 1999-02, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
  11. Barro, Robert J & Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, 1997. " Technological Diffusion, Convergence, and Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-26, March.
  12. Wyplosz, Charles, 1991. "International trade with endogenous technological change : by L.A. Rivera-Batiz and P.M. Romer," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1002-1004, May.
  13. Benjamin Bental & Dan Peled, 2002. "Quantitative growth effects of subsidies in a search theoretic R&D model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 397-423.
  14. Valentina Cristiana MATERIA & Roberto ESPOSTI, 2010. "Modelling Agricultural Public R&D Cofinancing Within A Principal-Agent Framework. The case of an Italian region," Working Papers 347, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
  15. J. D. Howe & D. G. McFetridge, 1976. "The Determinants of R & D Expenditures," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 57-71, February.
  16. Archibugi, Daniele & Coco, Alberto, 2005. "Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 175-194, March.
  17. Dasgupta, Partha, 1988. "Patents, Priority and Imitation or, the Economics of Races and Waiting Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(389), pages 66-80, March.
  18. Zvi Griliches, 1991. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Working Papers 3301, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1990. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 165-174, April.
  20. Bianca Pot� & Giovanni Cerulli, 2011. "Evaluation of firm R&D and innovation support: new indicators and the ex-ante prediction of ex-post additionality," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 19-29, March.
  21. Schmookler, Jacob, 1962. "Economic Sources of Inventive Activity," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(01), pages 1-20, March.
  22. Godin, Benoit, 2007. "Science, accounting and statistics: The input-output framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1388-1403, November.
  23. James, M.J., 2006. "An institutional critique of recent attempts to measure technological capabilities across countries," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-211378, Tilburg University.
  24. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  25. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  26. Edwin Mansfield, 1964. "Industrial Research and Development Expenditures: Determinants, Prospects, and Relation to Size of Firm and Inventive Output," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72, pages 319.
  27. Luis A. Rivera-Batiz & Paul M. Romer, 1992. "International Trade with Endogenous Technological Change," NBER Working Papers 3594, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  28. James Davidson & Robert de Jong, 1997. "Strong laws of large numbers for dependent heterogeneous processes: a synthesis of recent and new results," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 251-279.
  29. A. Filippetti & A. Peyrache, 2010. "The Globalization of Technological Capabilities of Countries: A Dual Approach Using Composite Indicators & Data Envelopment Analysis," CEPA Working Papers Series WP102010, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:csc:cerisp:201011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Enrico Viarisio) or (Anna Perin) or (Giancarlo Birello).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.