Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 519–543 | Cite as

Public funding for innovation and the exit of firms

  • Bernd EbersbergerEmail author
Regular Article


This paper focuses on the effect public subsidies for innovation have on the exit of firms. Utilizing Finnish firm level data I employ a kernel matching approach to eliminate the selection bias of public funding and estimate the counterfactual. As a robustness check a treatment model is estimated. Public funding for innovation exhibits a significant effect reducing the probability of exit. Distinguishing between exit by merger and exit by closure shows that public funding has a significant effect on the former. No significant effect on the latter can be found.


Public funding Innovation Exit of firms 

JEL Classification

O38 L11 C21 



The analysis was started when the author was with the Technical Research Center of Finland (VTT). Funding by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation and the Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy is gratefully acknowledged. The analysis was conducted in the research laboratory of Statistics Finland. The author thanks Olavi Lehtoranta for his support and suggestions. Dirk Czarnitzki, two anonymous referees and the editors provided helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the paper.


  1. Aerts K, Czarnitzki D (2006) The impact of public R&D-funding in Flanders. IWT-Studies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts K, Schmidt T (2008) Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: a comparison between Flanders and Germany. Res Policy 37(5):806–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali-Yrkkö J, Pajarinen M (2003) Julkinen T&K-rahoitus ja sen vaikutus yrityksiin—analyysi metallic—ja elektroniikka-teolisuudesta. ETLA Discussion Papers. HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  4. Almus M, Czarnitzki D (2003) The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities: the case of Eastern Germany. J Bus Econ Stat 21(2):226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker SO, Egger P (2010) Endogenous product versus process innovation and a firm’s propensity to export. Empir Econ. doi: 10.1007/s00181-009-0322-6 Google Scholar
  6. Blanes JV, Busom I (2004) Who participates in R&D subsidy programs? The case of Spanish manufacturing firms. Res Policy 33(10):1459–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blundell R, Costa Dias M (2000) Evaluation methods for non-experimental data. Fisc Stud 21(4):427–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boschma RA, Sotarauta M (2005) Economic policy from an evolutionary perspective: the case of Finland. Econ Geogr, Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography. UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Buddelmeyer H, Jensen PH, Webster E (2009) Innovation and the determinants of company survival. Oxf Econ Pap forthcomin 1–25Google Scholar
  10. Buehler S, Kaiser C, Jaeger F (2006) Merge or fail? The determinants of mergers and bankruptcies in Switzerland, 1995–2000. Econ Lett 90(1):88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busom I (2000) An empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies. Econ Innov New Technol 19(2):111–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cefis E, Marsili O (2005) A matter of life and death: innovation and firm survival. Ind Corp Change 14(6):1167–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cefis E, Marsili O, Schenk H (2009) The effects of mergers and acquisitions on the firm size distribution. J Evol Econ 19(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Czarnitzki D (2006) Research and development in small and medium-sized enterprises: the role of financial constraints and public funding. Scott J Polit Econ 53(3):335–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Czarnitzki D, Fier A (2003) Publicly funded R&D collaborations and patent outcome in Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal, ZEW Discussion Papers (p. 25). Mannheim. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.416441
  17. Czarnitzki D, Hussinger K (2004) The link between R&D subsidies, R&D spending and technological performance. ZEW Discussion Papers. MannheimGoogle Scholar
  18. Czarnitzki D, Licht G (2006) Additionality of public R&D grants in a transition economy: the case of Eastern Germany. Econ Transit 14(1):101–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Czarnitzki D, Ebersberger B, Fier A (2007) The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. J Appl Econom 22:1347–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. David P, Hall B, Toole A (2000) Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Res Policy 29(4–5):497–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewey D (1961) Mergers and cartels: some reservations about policy. Am Econ Rev 51(2):255–262Google Scholar
  22. Duguet E (2004) Are subsidies a substitute or a complement to privately funded R&D? Evidence from France using propensity score methods for non-experimental data. Rev Econ Polit 114(2):263–292Google Scholar
  23. Ebersberger B (2004) Labor demand effects of public R&D funding. VTT Working Papers. EspooGoogle Scholar
  24. Ebersberger B (2005) The impact of public R&D funding. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, VTT Publications Vol. 588. Espoo: VTTGoogle Scholar
  25. EuropeanCommission (2005) Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. EuropeanCommunities (2004) Innovation Europe. Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  27. Frenken K, Van Oort F, Verburg T (2007) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Reg Stud 41(5):685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Georghiou L, Smith K, Toivanen O, Ylä-Anttila P (2003) Evaluation of the finnish innovation support system (Vol. 5). Ministry of Trade and Industry Publications, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  29. Girma S, Görg H, Strobl E (2007) The effects of government grants on plant survival: a micro-econometric analysis. Int J Ind Organ 25(4):701–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonzalez X, Pazo C (2008) Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Res Policy 37(3):371–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gonzalez X, Jaumandreu J, Pazo C (2005) Barriers to innovation and subsidy effectiveness. Rand J Econ 36(4):930–950Google Scholar
  32. Görg H, Strobl E (2007) The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D. Economica 74(294):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall BH (2002) The financing of research and development. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 18(1):35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harhoff D, Stahl K, Woywode M (1998) Legal form, growth and exit of West German firms-empirical results for manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries. J Ind Econ 46(4):453–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd PE (1997) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Rev Econ Stud 64(4):605–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd PE (1998) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Rev Econ Stud 65(2):261–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heckman JJ, Lalonde RJ, Smith JA (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics (Vol. III). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1865–2097Google Scholar
  39. Hyvärinen J (2006) Behavioural additionality of public R&D funding in Finland. In OECD, Government R&D funding and company behaviour: measuring behavioural additionality. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 115–126Google Scholar
  40. Hyytinen A, Toivanen O (2005) Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth? Evidence on the role of public policy. Res Policy 34(9):1385–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jarmin RS (1999) Government technical assistance programs and plant survival: the role of plant ownership type. Center for Economic Studies Discussion Paper, Center for Economic Studies Discussion Paper (Vol. pp. 99–2). WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Johansson B, Karlsson C, Backman M (2007) Innovation policy instruments. CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaiser U (2004) Private R&D and Public R&D subsidies: microeconometric evidence from Denmark. Business, CEBR Discussion Papers (p. 26)Google Scholar
  44. Koski H (2008) Public R&D subsidies and employment growth—microeconometric evidence. ETLA Discussion Papers. HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  45. Lach S (2002) Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D Evidence from Israel. J Ind Econ 50(4):369–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lechner M (1998) Training the East German labour force. Microeconometric evaluations of continuous vocational training after unification. Springer/Physika, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  47. Lehto E (2000) Regional impacts of R&D and public R&D. HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerner J (1999) The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR Program. J Bus 72(3):285–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lundvall B, Borras S (2005) Science, technology adn innovation policy. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford Universtiy Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Lööf H, Hesmati A (2005) The impact of public funding on private R&D investment. New evidence from a firm level innovation study. Policy, CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series (pp 1–26). StockholmGoogle Scholar
  51. Metcalfe JS, Ramlogan R (2005) Competition and the regulation of economic development. Q Rev Econ Finance 45(2–3):215–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nås SO, Sandven T, Eriksson T, Andersson J, Tegsjö B, Lehtoranta O (2003) High-Tech Spin-Offs in the Nordic Countries Main report. Survival, STEP Report. OsloGoogle Scholar
  53. Peer A, Vertinsky I (2008) Firm exits as a determinant of new entry: is there evidence of local creative destruction? J Bus Venturing 23(3):280–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pentikäinen T (2000) Economic evaluation of the Finnish cluster programmes. VTT Technology Studies Working Paper. EspooGoogle Scholar
  55. Picot G, Dupuy R (1996) Job Creation by Company Size Class: Concentration and Persistance of Job Gains and Losses in Canadian Companies. Research Papers. OtawaGoogle Scholar
  56. Picot WG, Baldwin J, Dupuy R (1994) Have small firms created a disproportionate share of new jobs in Canada? A reassessment of the facts. Ottawa: Analytical Studies Branch, Statistics CanadaGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79(387):516–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rubin DB (1977) Assignment to treatment group on the basis of covariate. J Educ Stat 2:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schary MA (1991) The probability of exit. Rand J Econ 22(3):339–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Statistics Finland (2001) Science and technology in Finland 2000. Statistics Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  62. Takalo T, Tanayama T (2010) Adverse selection and financing of innovation: is there a need for R&D subsidies? J Technol Transf 35(1):16–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Takalo T, Tanayama T, Toivanen O (2005) Selection or self-rejection? Applications into a voluntary treatment program: the case of R&D subsidies. Innovation, HECER Discussion Papers (Vol. 17). HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  64. Tekes (2001) Annual Review 2000. Tekes, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  65. van Den Bergh JC (2008) Optimal diversity: increasing returns versus recombinant innovation. J Econ Behav Organ 68(3–4):565–580Google Scholar
  66. Wallsten SJ (2000) The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of small business innovation research program. Rand J Econ 31(1):82–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Woerter M (2009) Industry diversity and its impact on the innovation performance of firms. J Evol Econ 19(5):675–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wren C, Storey DJ (2002) Evaluating the effect of soft business support upon small firm performance. Oxf Econ Pap 54(2):334–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zahra SA, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manage Rev 27(2):185Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management Center InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations