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

Are R&D subsidies a substitute or a complement to privately funded R&D? Evidence from France using propensity score methods for non- experimental data

  • DUGUET Emmanuel

    (EPEE - University of Evry)

This study examines the effect of research and development subsidies on the private funding of R&D in France. We address this issue from the annual R&D survey over 1985-1997, which provides information about the R&D subsidies given by all the ministries to the firms having at least one full-time person working on R&D. In order to determine whether the supported firms would have invested the same amount of private R&D without the subsidies, we use matching methods. We show that the use of these methods is important because the global evaluations, in this paper, more often give a potential effect among the non-supported firms than a real effect among the supported firms. We first study the probability to get a subsidy. We find that this probability is increasing with size, the debt ratio and the importance of privately funded R&D. In a second step, controlling for the past public support the firms benefited from, we find that, on average, public funds add to private funds, so that there would be no significant crowding out effect.

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://econwpa.repec.org/eps/pe/papers/0411/0411007.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Public Economics with number 0411007.

as
in new window

Length: 38 pages
Date of creation: 16 Nov 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwppe:0411007
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 38
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://econwpa.repec.org

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. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
  2. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-51, July.
  3. DUGUET Emmanuel, 2004. "Innovation height, spillovers and TFP growth at the firm level: Evidence from French manufacturing," Development and Comp Systems 0411017, EconWPA.
  4. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Kabla, I., 1995. "A Moderate Support to Schumpeterian Conjectures from Various Innovation Measures," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 95.06, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  5. Andrews, Donald W. K. & Buchinsky, Moshe, 2001. "Evaluation of a three-step method for choosing the number of bootstrap repetitions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 345-386, July.
  6. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  7. 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.
  8. Isabel Busom, 2000. "An Empirical Evaluation of The Effects of R&D Subsidies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 111-148.
  9. Donald W. K. Andrews & Moshe Buchinsky, 2000. "A Three-Step Method for Choosing the Number of Bootstrap Repetitions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 23-52, January.
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:wpa:wuwppe:0411007. 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: (EconWPA)

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.