IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-03128950.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the impact of public policies on large firms: a synthetic control approach to science industry transfer policies

Author

Listed:
  • Corinne Autant-Bernard

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Ruben Fotso

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Nadine Massard

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

Abstract

Large firms dominate R&D investment in most countries and receive the majority of public R&D funding. Due to methodological difficulties, however, evaluation of the effect of government-sponsored R&D programmes mainly focuses on small-and medium-sized enterprises. The scarcity of large firms and their heterogeneity hampers the ability to find proper counterfactuals for very large companies and makes it difficult to use proper inference methods to measure the impact of a specific policy. In order to address these methodological issues, we propose using the synthetic control method, initially developed by Abadie et al. (2010) to evaluate programmes on a regional scale. We apply this method to evaluate the impact of a new French science-industry transfer initiative and compare the results with the random trend model and more standard counterfactual approaches. Based on data covering a long pre-treatment period (1998-2011) and ongoing treatment period (2012-2015), we reveal a convergence between the results obtained with the synthetic control method and the random trend model, and demonstrate that traditional counterfactual evaluation methods are not appropriate for large firms. Moreover, the synthetic control method has the advantage of providing an individual assessment of the policy impact on each firm. In the specific case of the French science-industry transfer initiative, it reveals that the impact on private R&D is highly heterogenous both on RD inputs and cooperation behaviours. Beyond this specific transfer policy, this study suggests that the synthetic control method opens new research perspectives in policy impact evaluation at the firm level. Abstract: Large firms dominate R&D investment in most countries and receive the majority of public R&D funding. Due to methodological difficulties, however, evaluation of the effect of government-sponsored R&D programmes mainly focuses on small-and medium-sized enterprises. The scarcity of large firms and their heterogeneity hampers the ability to find proper counterfactuals for very large companies and makes it difficult to use proper inference methods to measure the impact of a specific policy. In order to address these methodological issues, we propose using the synthetic control method, initially developed by Abadie et al. (2010) to evaluate programmes on a regional scale. We apply this method to evaluate the impact of a new French science-industry transfer initiative and compare the results with the random trend model and more standard counterfactual approaches. Based on data covering a long pre-treatment period (1998-2011) and ongoing treatment period (2012-2015), we reveal a convergence between the results obtained with the synthetic control method and the random trend model, and demonstrate that traditional counterfactual evaluation methods are not appropriate for large firms. Moreover, the synthetic control method has the advantage of providing an individual assessment of the policy impact on each firm. In the specific case of the French science-industry transfer initiative, it reveals that the impact on private R&D is highly heterogenous both on RD inputs and cooperation behaviours. Beyond this specific transfer policy, this study suggests that the synthetic control method opens new research perspectives in policy impact evaluation at the firm level.

Suggested Citation

  • Corinne Autant-Bernard & Ruben Fotso & Nadine Massard, 2020. "Evaluating the impact of public policies on large firms: a synthetic control approach to science industry transfer policies," Post-Print halshs-03128950, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03128950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jugend, Daniel & Fiorini, Paula De Camargo & Armellini, Fabiano & Ferrari, Aline Gabriela, 2020. "Public support for innovation: A systematic review of the literature and implications for open innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Claire Dujardin & Virginie Louis & Florian Mayneris, 2015. "Les pôles de compétitivité wallons Quel impact sur les performances économiques des entreprises ? The Walloon competitiveness clusters and their impact on firms’ economic performances?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2015017, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    3. Criscuolo, Chiara & Martin, Ralf & Overman, Henry & Van Reenen, John, 2012. "The Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 6323, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Alberto Abadie & Javier Gardeazabal, 2003. "The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 113-132, March.
    5. Heckman, J.J. & Hotz, V.J., 1988. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods For Estimating The Impact Of Social Programs: The Case Of Manpower Training," University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-12, Chicago - Economics Research Center.
    6. Saia, Alessandro, 2017. "Choosing the open sea: The cost to the UK of staying out of the euro," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 82-98.
    7. Federico Biagi & Daniele Bondonio & Alberto Martini, 2015. "Counterfactual Impact Evaluation of Enterprise Support Programmes. Evidence from a Decade of Subsidies to Italian Firm," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1619, European Regional Science Association.
    8. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    9. Chiara Criscuolo & Ralf Martin & Henry G. Overman & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Some Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 48-85, January.
    10. Greco, Marco & Grimaldi, Michele & Cricelli, Livio, 2017. "Hitting the nail on the head: Exploring the relationship between public subsidies and open innovation efficiency," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 213-225.
    11. Enrico Vanino & Stephen Roper & Bettina Becker, 2020. "Knowledge to Money: Assessing the Business Performance Effects of Publicly Funded R&D Grants," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(04), pages 20-24, January.
    12. John E. DiNardo & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 1997. "The Returns to Computer Use Revisited: Have Pencils Changed the Wage Structure Too?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(1), pages 291-303.
    13. Boeing, Philipp, 2016. "The allocation and effectiveness of China’s R&D subsidies - Evidence from listed firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1774-1789.
    14. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    15. Wanzenböck, Iris & Scherngell, Thomas & Fischer, Manfred M., 2013. "How do firm characteristics affect behavioural additionalities of public R&D subsidies? Evidence for the Austrian transport sector," MPRA Paper 77552, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Angrist, Joshua D. & Krueger, Alan B., 1999. "Empirical strategies in labor economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1277-1366, Elsevier.
    17. Alberto Abadie & Alexis Diamond & Jens Hainmueller, 2015. "Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 495-510, February.
    18. Auld, M. Christopher & Grootendorst, Paul, 2004. "An empirical analysis of milk addiction," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, November.
    19. Ruben Fotso, 2022. "Evaluating the indirect effects of cluster-based innovation policies: the case of the Technological Research Institutes in France," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1070-1114, August.
    20. Stefan Klößner & Ashok Kaul & Gregor Pfeifer & Manuel Schieler, 2018. "Comparative politics and the synthetic control method revisited: a note on Abadie et al. (2015)," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 154(1), pages 1-11, December.
    21. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff, 2016. "The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 797-815.
    22. Clarysse, Bart & Wright, Mike & Mustar, Philippe, 2009. "Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1517-1533, December.
    23. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    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. Castillo, Victoria & Figal Garone, Lucas & Maffioli, Alessandro & Salazar, Lina, 2017. "The causal effects of regional industrial policies on employment: A synthetic control approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 25-41.
    2. Bruno Ferman & Cristine Pinto & Vitor Possebom, 2020. "Cherry Picking with Synthetic Controls," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 510-532, March.
    3. David Gilchrist & Thomas Emery & Nuno Garoupa & Rok Spruk, 2023. "Synthetic Control Method: A tool for comparative case studies in economic history," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 409-445, April.
    4. Samuel Verevis & Murat Üngör, 2021. "What has New Zealand gained from The FTA with China?: Two counterfactual analyses†," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 68(1), pages 20-50, February.
    5. Maximiliano Marzetti & Rok Spruk, 2023. "Long-Term Economic Effects of Populist Legal Reforms: Evidence from Argentina," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(1), pages 60-95, March.
    6. Dennis Shen & Peng Ding & Jasjeet Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2022. "Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data," Papers 2207.14481, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    7. Nauro Campos & Fabrizio Coricelli & Luigi Moretti,, 2020. "Choosing Institutional over Economic Integration: Are There Growth Effects?," Working Papers hal-03028143, HAL.
    8. Kuosmanen, Timo & Zhou, Xun & Eskelinen, Juha & Malo, Pekka, 2021. "Design Flaw of the Synthetic Control Method," MPRA Paper 106328, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Giulio Grossi & Marco Mariani & Alessandra Mattei & Patrizia Lattarulo & Ozge Oner, 2020. "Direct and spillover effects of a new tramway line on the commercial vitality of peripheral streets. A synthetic-control approach," Papers 2004.05027, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    10. Roy Cerqueti & Raffaella Coppier & Alessandro Girardi & Marco Ventura, 2022. "The sooner the better: lives saved by the lockdown during the COVID-19 outbreak. The case of Italy [Using synthetic controls: Feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(1), pages 46-70.
    11. Kaul, Ashok & Klößner, Stefan & Pfeifer, Gregor & Schieler, Manuel, 2015. "Synthetic Control Methods: Never Use All Pre-Intervention Outcomes Together With Covariates," MPRA Paper 83790, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Alice Lépissier & Matto Mildenberger, 2021. "Unilateral climate policies can substantially reduce national carbon pollution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido Imbens, 2023. "Causal Models for Longitudinal and Panel Data: A Survey," Papers 2311.15458, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    14. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    15. Christian Aleman & Christopher Busch & Alexander Ludwig & Raul Santaeulalia-Llopis, 2022. "A Stage-Based Identification of Policy Effects," PIER Working Paper Archive 22-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. Martin Becker & Stefan Klößner & Gregor Pfeifer, 2018. "Cross-Validating Synthetic Controls," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 603-609.
    17. Daniel Albalate & Germà Bel & Ferran A. Mazaira-Font, 2021. "Decoupling synthetic control methods to ensure stability, accuracy and meaningfulness," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 549-584, December.
    18. Esteban Colla‐De‐Robertis & Rafael Garduno Rivera, 2021. "The effect of a free trade agreement with the United States on member countries' per capita GDP: A synthetic control analysis," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 1129-1145, August.
    19. Thomas Barnebeck Andersen, 2023. "The Cost of a Currency Peg during the Great Recession," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 255-279, April.
    20. Essers, Dennis & Ide, Stefaan, 2019. "The IMF and precautionary lending: An empirical evaluation of the selectivity and effectiveness of the Flexible Credit Line," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 25-61.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Impact evaluation; R&D policy; Large firms; Synthetic control method; Technological Research Institutes (TRIs);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • O36 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Open Innovation
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:hal:journl:halshs-03128950. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.