IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p2643-d1362501.html

Comparison of the Profile of Portuguese Companies That Receive Public Support for Innovation: National Support vs. European Support

Author

Listed:
  • Cátia Rosário

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Aveiro University, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
    CPES-Centro de Pesquisa e Estudos Sociais, Lusófona University, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Celeste Varum

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Aveiro University, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Anabela Botelho

    (Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Aveiro University, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

Innovation has emerged as the key driver of economic growth, technological advancement, and societal well-being. Recognizing the significance of fostering innovation, governments and policymakers worldwide have increasingly emphasized the need for public support to bolster the innovation ecosystem. This article explores the crucial importance of public support for innovation and delves into the characteristics of companies that receive such support. Based on the Community Innovation Survey of 2014, 2016, and 2018, information was compiled from 1857 companies. Of these companies, common to these 6 years of information, 755 received national support for innovation and 490 received European support. Based on these data, the main objective was to identify and distinguish the characteristics of Portuguese companies that receive European support and national support for innovation. To achieve this objective, logit models were estimated using Stata software. The results suggest that national support favors companies that belong to sectors with greater technological development, which develop new products and processes. Companies that establish cooperation agreements and that belong to groups of companies are also preferred for national support. In turn, of the companies that received European support, it appears that there is less differentiation in preference for the level of technological development. Companies that invest internally in R&D and that establish cooperation agreements for innovation are more likely to obtain European support, as are companies that have a higher proportion of workers with higher education. Finally, both national and European support favor companies with a greater volume of business from foreign markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Cátia Rosário & Celeste Varum & Anabela Botelho, 2024. "Comparison of the Profile of Portuguese Companies That Receive Public Support for Innovation: National Support vs. European Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2643-:d:1362501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2643/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2643/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin J.P. Jansen & Frans A.J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2005. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, And Ambidexterity: The Impact Of Environmental And Organizational Antecedents," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 57(4), pages 351-363, October.
    2. Mr. Anton Korinek & Mr. Martin Schindler & Joseph Stiglitz, 2021. "Technological Progress, Artificial Intelligence, and Inclusive Growth," IMF Working Papers 2021/166, International Monetary Fund.
    3. Ben Westmore, 2014. "Policy incentives for private innovation and maximising the returns," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2013(1), pages 121-163.
    4. N.S. Bosma & E. Stam & S. Wennekers, 2011. "Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship: A cross-national analysis of individual entrepreneurial behavior," Working Papers 11-04, Utrecht School of Economics.
    5. Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1996. "R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 630-640, June.
    6. Rita Bessone Basto & Ana Martins & Guida Nogueira, 2021. "The Impact of R&D tax incentives in Portugal," GEE Papers 0158, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised Jan 2021.
    7. Susanne Gretzinger & Holger Hinz & Wenzel Matiaske, 2010. "Cooperation in Innovation Networks: The Case of Danish and German SMEs," management revue. Socio-economic Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 21(2), pages 193-216.
    8. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    9. Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "Innovation and employment," World of Labour, LISER, pages 154-154, May.
    10. Ester van Laar & Alexander J. A. M. van Deursen & Jan A. G. M. van Dijk & Jos de Haan, 2020. "Determinants of 21st-Century Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A Systematic Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    11. Phillip Toner, 2011. "Workforce Skills and Innovation: An Overview of Major Themes in the Literature," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2011/1, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Audretsch, David B. & Lehmann, Erik E. & Menter, Matthias & Wirsching, Katharine, 2021. "Intrapreneurship and absorptive capacities: The dynamic effect of labor mobility," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, K. (Матросова, К.), 2016. "Research, Modeling and Process Management Dissemination of Innovations in Socio-Economic Systems [Исследование, Моделирование И Управление Процессами Распространения Инноваций В Социально-Экономических Системах]," Working Papers 1443, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    3. Manuchehr Irandoust, 2024. "Employment and technology: Creative creation or creative destruction? An asymmetric analysis," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 201-219, June.
    4. Roberto Álvarez & Mario Canales, 2017. "Impacto de los Obstáculos al Conocimiento en la Innovación de las Empresas Chilenas," Working Papers wp452, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    5. L. Colombo & H. Dawid & M. Piva & M. Vivarelli, 2017. "Does easy start-up formation hamper incumbents’ R&D investment?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 513-531, October.
    6. Anna Bernard & Rahim Lila & Joana Silva, 2023. "Employment versus Efficiency: Which Firms Should R&D Tax Credits Target?," GEE Papers 0176, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised Jul 2023.
    7. José Manuel Santos‐Jaén & Antonia Madrid‐Guijarro & Domingo García‐Pérez‐de‐Lema, 2021. "The impact of corporate social responsibility on innovation in small and medium‐sized enterprises: The mediating role of debt terms and human capital," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1200-1215, July.
    8. Buyse, Tim & Heylen, Freddy & Schoonackers, Ruben, 2020. "On the impact of public policies and wage formation on business investment in research and development," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 188-199.
    9. Fors, Gunnar & Zejan, Mario, 1996. "Overseas R&D by Multinationals in foreign Centers of Excellence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 111, Stockholm School of Economics.
    10. Salvador Barrios & Elena Navajas Cawood, 2008. "The Location of ICT activities in EU regions. Implications for regional policies," INVESTIGACIONES REGIONALES - Journal of REGIONAL RESEARCH, Asociación Española de Ciencia Regional, issue 13, pages 179-210.
    11. Anna M. Ferragina & Giulia Nunziante, 2018. "Are Italian firms performances influenced by innovation of domestic and foreign firms nearby in space and sectors?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 45(3), pages 335-360, September.
    12. Laura-Diana Radu, 2012. "Technological Innovation Management and its Role in Performance of Organizations," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 5(5), pages 95-103, October.
    13. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    14. Apostolos Baltzopoulos & Pontus Braunerhjelm & Ioannis Tikoudis, 2016. "Spin-offs: why geography matters," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 273-303.
    15. Alexander Cordes & Ulrich Schasse, 2015. "The firm's evaluation of local research institutes and universities - an empirical analysis for Germany," ERSA conference papers ersa15p933, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "Strategic Entrepreneurship at Universities: Academic Entrepreneurs’ Assessment of Policy Programs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 319-340, January.
    17. Grant H. Lewis, 2017. "Effects of federal socioeconomic contracting preferences," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 763-783, December.
    18. Francisco Gustavo Bautista Carrillo & Daniel Arias-Aranda, 2025. "Technological Adoption Sequences and Sustainable Innovation Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis of Optimal Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    20. Yu Sun & Xingxuan Kuang & Dazhi Sun, 2016. "The geographic concentration of China’s e-business enterprises: where they gather and why," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(1), pages 31-42, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2643-:d:1362501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.