Evaluating the impacts of subsidies on innovation activities in Germany

Scottish Journal of Political Economy

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 565-586

  Hujer, Reinhard ^a,b,c   Radić, Dubravko ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b IZA   (Germany)

^c CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVENESS; INNOVATION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SUBSIDY SYSTEM;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY;

EID: 28244448239     PISSN: 00369292     EISSN: 14679485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9485.2005.00356.x     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. ALMUS, M. and CZARNITZKI, D. (2002). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms' innovation activities: the case of Eastern Germany. Discussion Paper, Centre for European Economic Research.
2. ANGRIST, J. D. (1998). Estimating the labour market impact of voluntary military service using social security data on military applicants. Econometrica, 66, 2, pp. 249-88.
3. BELLMANN, L. (1997). The IAB establishment panel with an exemplary analysis of employment expectations. Discussion Paper, Institute for Employment Research.
4. BLUNDELL, R. W. and SMITH, R. J. (1993). Simultaneous microeconometric models with censored or qualitative dependent variables. In G. S. Maddala, R. Rao and H. D. Vinod (eds.), Handbook of Statistics, Amsterdam: North Hollend, 11, pp. 117-43.
5. BLUNDELL, R. W. and SMITH, R. J. (1994). Coherency and estimation in simultaneous models with censored or qualitative dependent variables. Journal of Econometrics, 64, pp. 355-73.
6. BRANSTETTER, L. and SAKAKIBARA, M. (1998). Japanese research consortia: a microecononometrical analysis of industrial policy. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 2, pp. 207-33.
7. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR BILDUNG UND FORSCHUNG & BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR WIRTSCHAFT UND TECHNOLOGIE (BMBF & BMWi 2001). Innovationsfö rderung: Hilfen für Forschung und Entwicklung. Bonn und Berlin.
8. COHEN, W. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 182-264.
9. CZARNITZKI, D. (2001). Die Auswirkungen der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik auf die Innovationsaktivitäten ostdeutscher Unternehmen. Schmollers Jahrbuch - Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozalwissenschaften (Journal of Applied Social Science Studies), 121, 4.
10. CZARNITZKI, D. and FIER, A. (2002). Substitutive or complementary? Innovation subsidies in the German service sector. Discussion Paper, Centre for European Economic Research.
11. CZARNITZKI, D., DOHERR, T., FIER, A., LICHT, G. and RAMMER, C. (2003). Öffentliche Förderung der Innovationsaktiviläten von Unternehmen in Deutschland, Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem. Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.
12. DAVID, P., HALL, B. and TOOLE, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or subsitute for private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence. Research Policy, 29, pp. 497-529.
13. EVANS, W. N. and SCHWAB, R. M. (1995). Finishing high school and starting college: Do Catholic schools make a difference? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, pp. 941-74.
14. FIER, A. and HARHOFF, D. (2001). Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme. Discussion Paper, Centre for European Economic Research.
15. GRILICHES, Z. and REGEV, H. (1999). R&D, Government support, and firm productivity in Israeli industry, 1975-1994. Working Paper, NBER.
16. HALL, B. H., GRILICHES, Z. and HAUSMAN, J. A. (1986). Patents and R&D: is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27, pp. 265-83.
17. HECKMAN, J., ICHIMURA, H. and TODD, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65, pp. 261-94.
18. HECKMAN, J. J., ICHIMURA, H., SMITH, J. and TODD, P. (1998). Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica, 66, pp. 1017-98.
19. HUJER, R., CALIENDO, M. and RADIC, D. (2001). Estimating the effects of wage subsidies on the labour demand in west germany using the IAB establishment panel. Ifo Studien, 47, pp. 163-98.
20. HUJER, R., CALIENDO, M. and RADIC, D. (2002). Skill biased technological and organizational change: estimating a mixed simultaneous equation model using the IAB establishment panel. Discussion Paper, Institute for the Study of Labor.
21. IRWIN, D. A. and KLENOW, P. J. (1996). High-Tech R&D subsidies: estimating the effects of sematech. Journal of International Economics, 40, pp. 232-344.
22. KLETTE, T. and MØEN, J. (1999). From growth theory to technology policy - coordination problems in theory and practice. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 25, pp. 53-74.
23. KLETTE, T. J., MØEN, J. and GRILICHES, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, pp. 471-95.
24. LECHNER, M. (2002). Program heterogeneity and propensity score matching: an application to the evaluation of active labor market policies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, pp. 205-20.
25. LERNER, J. (1998). The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72, pp. 285-318.
26. LICHT, G. and STADLER, M. (2003). Auswirkung öffentlicher Forschungsförderung auf die private F&E-Tätigkeit: Eine mikroökonometrische Evaluation. In W. Franz, H. J. Ramser and M. Stadler (eds.), Empirische Wirtschaftsforschung: Methoden und Anwendungen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 213-40.
27. LICHTENBERG, F. (1984). The relationship between federal contract R&D and company R&D. The American Economic Review, 74, 2, pp. 73-8.
28. MADDALA, G. S. (1983). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. MEYER, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13, 2, pp. 151-61.
30. PATEL, P. and PAVITT, K. (1995). Patterns of technological activity: their measurement and interpretation. In P. Stoneman (ed.), Handbook of the Economics Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 14-51.
31. ROSENBAUM, P. and RUBIN, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrica, 70, pp. 41-50.
32. ROSENBAUM, P. R. and RUBIN, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, pp. 33-8.
33. RUBIN, D. B. (1979). Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, pp. 318-28.
34. SCHMIDT, P. (1990). Constraints on the parameters in simultaneous tobit and probit models. In C. F. Manski and D. McFadden (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 422-34.
35. WALLSTEN, S. J. (2000). The effect of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the small business innovation research program. RAND Journal of Economics, 31, pp. 82-100.