IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Rationales and instruments for public innovation policies

Economic interest in innovation policy largely arises from the fundamental importance of innovation to social welfare and from inefficiencies in innovation in a competitive market environment. As a result, a wide variety of public innovation policies are used in practice. This study reviews the economic justifications for public innovation policies and compares the existing policy tools, paying particular attention to the Finnish innovation policy environment.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Bank of Finland in its series Research Discussion Papers with number 1/2013.

in new window

Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: 07 Jan 2013
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published as Takalo, Tuomas, 'Rationales and instruments for public innovation policies' in Journal of Reviews on Global Economics , 2012, pages 157-167.
Handle: RePEc:hhs:bofrdp:2013_001
Contact details of provider: Postal: Bank of Finland, P.O. Box 160, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland
Web page:

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. Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja & Toivanen, Otto, 2013. "Market failures and the additionality effects of public support to private R&D: Theory and empirical implications," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 634-642.
  2. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Law and Economics 0201001, EconWPA.
  3. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 2009. "The Economics of Growth," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 9780262012638, June.
  4. Josh Lerner, 2002. "When Bureaucrats Meet Entrepreneurs: The Design of Effective "Public Venture Capital" Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(477), pages F73-F84, February.
  5. Busom, Isabel & Corchuelo, Beatriz & Martinez Ros, Ester, 2012. "Tax incentives or subsidies for R&D?," MERIT Working Papers 056, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
  6. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Industrial Organization 0201004, EconWPA.
  7. Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja & Toivanen, Otto, 2008. "Evaluating innovation policy: a structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies," Research Discussion Papers 7/2008, Bank of Finland.
  8. Holmstrom, Bengt & Tirole, Jean, 1997. "Financial Intermediation, Loanable Funds, and the Real Sector," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(3), pages 663-91, August.
  9. Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja, 2008. "Adverse selection and financing of innovation: is there a need for R&D subsidies?," Research Discussion Papers 19/2008, Bank of Finland.
  10. Bloom, Nick & Griffith, Rachel & Van Reenen, John, 2002. "Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979-1997," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 1-31, July.
  11. Juha-Pekka Niinimäki & Tuomas Takalo, 2007. "Benchmarking and Comparing Entrepreneurs with Incomplete Information," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 91-107, Autumn.
  12. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2000. "Perfectly Competitive Innovation," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1996, David K. Levine.
  13. Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism For Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167, November.
  14. Benjamin Russo, 2004. "A cost-benefit analysis of R&D tax incentives," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 313-335, May.
  15. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," DELTA Working Papers 90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  16. Emeric Henry & Carlos J. Ponce, 2009. "Waiting to imitate: on the dynamic pricing of knowledge," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pd, Sciences Po.
  17. Chaminade, Cristina & Edquist, Charles, 2006. "Rationales for public policy intervention from a systems of innovation approach: the case of VINNOVA," Papers in Innovation Studies 2006/4, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.
  18. Giovanni Cerulli, 2010. "Modelling and Measuring the Effect of Public Subsidies on Business R&D: A Critical Review of the Econometric Literature," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 421-449, 09.
  19. Rufin Baghana & Pierre Mohnen, 2009. "Effectiveness of R&D Tax Incentives in Small and Large Enterprises in Québec," CIRANO Working Papers 2009s-01, CIRANO.
  20. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
  21. 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.
  22. Gerard Llobet & Hugo Hopenhayn & Matthew F. Mitchell, 2000. "Rewarding sequential innovators: prizes, patents and buyouts," Staff Report 273, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  23. Jacek Warda, 2006. "Tax Treatment of Business Investments in Intellectual Assets: An International Comparison," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2006/4, OECD Publishing.
  24. Hall, Bronwyn, 2002. "The Financing of Research and Development," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5rf0x9gz, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  25. Hyytinen, Ari & Pajarinen, Mika, 2002. "Small Business Finance in Finland. A Descriptive Study," Discussion Papers 812, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  26. Stiglitz, Joseph E & Weiss, Andrew, 1981. "Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 393-410, June.
  27. Squicciarini, Mariagrazia & Loikkanen, Torsti, 2008. "Going Global: The Challenges for Knowledge-based Economies," MPRA Paper 9663, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  28. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  29. Hall, Bronwyn & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 449-469, April.
  30. Robin Boadway & Michael Keen, 2006. "Financing and Taxing New Firms under Asymmetric Information," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 62(4), pages 471-502, December.
  31. Bronwyn H. Hall & John van Reenen, 1999. "How Effective are Fiscal Incentives for R&D? A New Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Papers 7098, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  32. de Meza, David & Webb, David C, 1987. "Too Much Investment: A Problem of Asymmetric Information," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(2), pages 281-92, May.
  33. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatr32p81 is not listed on IDEAS
  34. Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  35. Klette, Tor Jakob & Moen, Jarle & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 471-495, April.
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:hhs:bofrdp:2013_001. 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: (Minna Nyman)

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.