IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

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.

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

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
Web page: http://www.ceris.cnr.it/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Sala-i-martin, X. & Barro, R.J., 1995. "technological Diffusion, Convergence and Growth," Papers 735, Yale - Economic Growth Center.
  2. 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.
  3. Hall, Bronwyn H., 2002. "The Financing of Research and Development," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt34c1c643, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  4. Godin, Benoit, 2007. "Science, accounting and statistics: The input-output framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1388-1403, November.
  5. Angrist, J.D. & Imbens, G.W., 1992. "Average causal response with variable treatment intensity," Discussion Paper 1992-34, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Rivera-Batiz, Luis A. & Romer, Paul M., 1991. "International trade with endogenous technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 971-1001, May.
  11. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
  12. 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.
  13. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  15. Fagerberg, Jan & Srholec, Martin, 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1417-1435, October.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. James, M.J., 2006. "An institutional critique of recent attempts to measure technological capabilities across countries," Other publications TiSEM 05175942-7ecf-410c-9e17-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  20. 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.
  21. Paul M Romer, 1999. "Endogenous Technological Change," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2135, David K. Levine.
  22. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1990. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 165-174, April.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "The Dynamics and Evolution of Industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 51-87.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. Schmookler, Jacob, 1962. "Economic Sources of Inventive Activity," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(01), pages 1-20, March.
  29. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.