چهارچوب اثربخشی مداخلات دولتیِ تحقیق و توسعه بر عملکرد بنگاه¬ها؛ یک رویکرد فراترکیب
محورهای موضوعی : عمومىزهرا محمدهاشمی 1 * , سید سپهر قاضی نوری 2 , مهدی سجادی¬فر 3
1 - سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور،تهران
2 -
3 - گروه فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ،تهران
کلید واژه: مشوق مالی, مشوق مالیاتی, اثربخشی, اثر افزونگی, فراترکیب,
چکیده مقاله :
سیاستگذاران برای دستیابی به اهداف مورد نظر خود ابزارهای سیاستی متنوعی را طراحی می کنند که اجرای موفقیت آمیز این ابزارها، نیازمند تحلیل و بررسی نتایج و اثرات آنها است. در این راستا، روش های مختلفی برای بررسی اثربخشی مداخلات دولت به کارگرفته شده و ارزش و شایستگی آنها را از ابعاد مختلف بر ذینفعان تعیین می شود. هدف مقاله حاضر، بررسی عمیق، شناسایی و دسته بندی شاخص های اثرگذاری ابزارهای سیاستی مالی و مالیاتی است که توسط دولت ها در حمایت از کسب و کارهای کوچک و متوسط یا نوآور و بمنظور تحریک تحقیق و توسعه ارائه می شوند. بدین منظور، بر اساس روش فراترکیب 279 مقاله و گزارش از پایگاه های رسمی و معتبر شناسایی شده و پس از طی مراحل لازم 67 سند مورد تحلیل نهایی قرار گرفته است. با تجزیه و تحلیل و ترکیب کیفی نتایج مطالعات ارزیابی سیاست، 15 شاخص اثر گذار بر عملکرد شرکت ها شناسایی شد که این شاخص ها در قالب سه دسته اثر افزونگی ورودی، افزونگی خروجی و افزونگی رفتاری در نگاشت تحقیق جایگذاری شدند. در پایان به منظور تعیین میزان اهمیت و پشتیبانی این مطالعات، با استفاده از روش آنتروپی شانون به تعیین ضریب اثر اجزای شناسایی شده در نگاشت پرداخته شد که شاخص هزینه کرد تحقیق و توسعه از دسته افزونگی ورودی و شاخص نوآوری از دسته افزونگی خروجی بیشترین تاثیر را دارا بودند.
Policymakers devise a variety of policy tools to achieve their goals that successful implementation of these tools requires an analysis of their results and effects. In this regard, various methods are used to examine the effectiveness of government interventions and their value and merit are determined from different dimensions on the stakeholders. The present study is conducted with the aim of qualitative composition the results of previouse studies in the field of evaluating the effectiveness of financial and tax incentive tools provided by governments in support of small and medium-sized or innovative businesses in order to stimulate research and development. For this purpose, 279 articles and reports from official and valid databases are identified, based on the Meta-synthesis methodology and after the completion of the necessary steps, 66 documents are finalized. By analyzing and qualitative combining the results of policy evaluation studies, 15 effective indicators on firms performance are identified. These indicators are embedded in the research map in to 3 groups inputs, output and behaviural additionality. finally, through Shannon entropy method, the coefficient of effect the identified components in the map are determined. Research and development expenditure index from input additionality category and innovation index from the output additionality category respectivly have most important and influential in firms.
1. آذر، عادل.، میرفخرالدینی، سیدحیدر.، انواری رستمی، علی اصغر (1387). بررسی مقایسه ای تحلیل داده ها در شش سیگما، با کمک ابزارهای آماری و فنون تصمیمگیری چند شاخصه، مجله مدرس علوم انسانی، دورة 12 شمارة 4 :1 -36
2. اصغرپور، محمدجواد(1388).تصمیم گیری های چند معیاره.انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 196-200.
3. سهرابی، بابک؛ اعظمی، امیر؛ یزدانی، حمیدرضا(1390). آسیب شناسی پژوهشهای انجام شده در زمینه مدیریت اسلامی با رویکرد فراترکیب. فصلنامه چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی.
شاه‌طهماسبی، مجید.، جوادیان، مجید.، نیکبخت، محمدجواد. (1391). بررسی نقش اعطای تسهیلات به بنگاه‌های کوچک و متوسط صنعتی در ایجاد اشتغال (مورد مطالعه: کارگاه‌های صنعتی شهر تهران). فصلنامه علوم اقتصادی، 1، 30-7.
5. طیبی، سیدکمیل.، ساطعی، مهسا.، صمیمی، پریسا .(1389). تأثیر تسهیلات بانکی بر اشتغال‌زایی بخش‌های اقتصادی ایران. فصلنامه پول و اقتصاد، 4، 33-1.
6. Aralica,Z.,& Botrić,V.(2013) . Evaluation Of Research And Development Tax Incentive Scheme In Croatia ,Ekonomska Istrazivanja-Economic Research,26(3): 63-80.
7. Agrawal, A,. Rosell, C and Simcoe S.T.(2014).Do Tax Credits Affect R&D Expenditures by Small Firms? Evidence from Canada NBER Working Paper No. 20615 .
4. Aschhoff,B,.( 2009).The Effect of Subsidies on R&D Investment and Success – Do Subsidy History and Size Matter? . Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW). Success – Do Subsidy History and Size Matter? . Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW).
5. Alsos, G. A., T. Claussen, E. Ljunggren and E. L. Madsen (2007). Evaluering av SkatteFUNNs atferdsaddisjonalitet. I hvilken grad har SkatteFUNN ført til endret FoU-atferd i bedriftene? NF-rapport nr. 13/2007, Nordlandsforskning, Bodø.
6. Alecke, B., T. Mitze, J. Reinkowski and G. Untiedt (2012). ‘Does firm size make a difference? Analysing the effectiveness of R&D subsidies in East Germany’, German Economic Review, 13, 174–195.
7. Albors-Garrigos,J. and R.R. Barrera (2011). ‘Impact of public funding on a firm’s innovation performance:Analysis of internal and external moderating factors’, International Journal of Innovation Management,15, 1297–1322.
8. Almus, M. and D. Czarnitzki (2003). ‘The Effects of Public R&D Subsidies on Firms' Innovation Activities: The Case of Eastern Germany’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 21(2), 226-236.
9. Afcha.s and García-Quevedo,J.(2014). The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition , CENTRUM Católica’s Working Paper No. 2014-11-0003.
10. Autio, E., S. Kanninen and R. Gustafsson (2008). ‘First-and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs’, Research Policy, 37, 59–76.
11. Arque-Castells P. and P. Mohnen, (2011). How can subsidies be effectively used to induce entry into R&D? Micro-dynamic evidence from Spain, International workshop on R&D Policy Impact Evaluation: Methods and Results, organised by Université Paris 1, ICN Business School and CREST with the support of the French Ministry for Higher Education and Research, Paris November 3 and 4.
12. Bloch, C., and Graversen, E.K. (2008). Additionality of public R&D funding in business R&D. Working Paper No 5. The Danish Center for Studies in Research and Research Policy, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
13. Bronzini, R. and Iachini, E. (2014). Are incentives for R&D effective? evidence from a regression discontinuity approach. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4):100–134.
14. Bozio, A., Irac, D., & Py, L. (2014). ‘Impact of research tax credit on R&D and innovation: evidence from the 2008 French reform’, Paris: Banque de France. 15. Bérubé, C. and Mohnen, P. (2009) .Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative? Canadian Journal of Economics, 42(1): 206-225.
16. Bench, S., & Day, T. (2010). The user experience of critical care discharge: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. International journal of nursing studies, 47(4), 487–499.
17. Billings, B.A., B.G.N. Musazi and J.W. Moore (2004). ‘The effects of funding source and management ownership on the productivity of R&D’, R&D Management, 34, 281–294.
18. Busom, I. and A. Fernandez-Ribas(2008). ‘The impact of firm participation in R&D programmes on R&D partnerships’, Research Policy, 37, 240–257.
19. Buisseret, T.J., Cameron,H.M.and Georghiou, L., 1995. What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(4/5/6),pp 587-600.
20. Czarnitzki, D. and G. Licht (2006). ‘Additionality of public R&D grants in a transition economy: The case of Eastern Germany’, Economics of Transition, 14, 101–131.
21. Cerulli, G. and B. Poti (2012). ‘The differential impact of privately and publicly funded R&D on R&D investment and innovation: The Italian case’, Prometheus, 30, 113–149.
22. Corchuelo, B. and E. Martinez-Ros(2009). ‘The effects of fiscal incentives for R&D in Spain’, Business Economics Working Paper No. wb092302, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economia de la Empresa.
23. Czarnitzki, D. and K. Hussinger (2004). The Link between R&D Subsidies, R&D Spending and Technological Performance, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 04-56, Mannheim.
24. Carvalho,A.(2011). Why are tax incentives increasingly used to promote private R&D?. CEFAGE-UE Working Paper.
25. Chapman,G., Hewitt-dundas, N.(2015).Behavioural Additionality: An Innovation Orientation Perspective presented at the DRUID Academy conference in Rebild, Aalborg, Denmark on January21-23, 2015.
26. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Mustar, P. (2009). “Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective”, Research Policy, 38, 1517-1533.
27. Cummins, Jason G. and Kevin A. Hassett (1992). The Effects of Taxation on Investment: New Evidence From Firm Level Panel Data, National Tax Journal, Vol.45, No.3, pp: 243-5
28. Czarnitzki, D. and C.L. Bento (2012). Value for Money? New Microeconometric Evidence on Public R&D Grants in Flanders, Brussels: IWT Studies.
29. Cappelen, A., A. Raknerud and M. Rybalka, (2007). The effect of R&D tax credits on firm performance. Report 2007/22. Statistics Norway: Oslo.
30. Cappelen, A., A. Raknerud and M. Rybalka, (2008), The effects of R&D tax credits on patenting and innovations. Discussion Paper No. 565/2008. Statistics Norway: Oslo.
31. Cunningham, P;Gök,A and Larédo,Ph(2016).Theimpact of direct support to R&D and innovation in firms , handbook of innovation policy impact.
32. Czarnitzki, D., Lopes-Bento, C. (2011). “Innovation subsidies: Does the funding source matter for innovation intensity and performance? Empirical evidence from Germany”, CEPS/INSTEAD Working Paper Series 2011-42.
33. Colombo, M. G., L. Grilli and S. Murtinu, (2011). R&D subsidies and the performance of high-tech start-ups. Economics Letters. (112):97-99.
34. Dalberg Global Development Advisors. (2011).Report on Support to SMEs in Developing Countries Through Financial Intermediaries.
35. Duguet, E.(2012).The Effect Of The Incremental R&D Tax Credit On The Private Funding Of R&D: An Econometric Evaluation On French Firm Level Data. available at https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00674546.
36. Dechezleprêtre,A. Einiö,E. Martin,R. Nguyen. K.T. and Reenen J. V.(2016).Do Tax Incentives for Research Increase Firm Innovation? An RD Design for R&D. Centre for Economic Performance.
37. Dumont.M.(2013). The impact of subsidies and fiscal incentives on corporate R&D expenditures in Belgium.Federal Planning Bureau.
38. Eliadis F P, Hill M M, Howlett M, (2005). "Intorduction", in Designing government: from instruments to governance Eds F P Eliadis, M M Hill, M Howlett, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, pp 3-18
39. Edler, J ., Shapira ,Ph.,Cunningham.p., Gök ,A.(2016). Evidence on the effectiveness of innovation policy intervention. Hadbook of innovation policy impact. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
40. Eshima, Y. (2003). Impact of public policy on innovative SMEs in Japan. Journal of Small Business Management, 41, 85-93.
41. Falk, R. (2007). “Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria”, Research Policy, 36, 665-679
42. Falk, R., J. Borrmann, N. Grieger, E. Neppl-Oswald and U. Weixlbaumer (2009). Evaluation of Government Funding in RTDI from a Systems Perspective in Austria, Report 4: Tax Incentive Schemes for R&D, Vienna: Austrian Institute for Economic Research.
43. Falk, R. (2006), “Behavioural additionality of Austria’s industrial research promotion fund (FFF)”, in: OECD (Ed.), Government R&D funding and company behaviour: measuring behavioural additionality. OECD Publishing: Paris.
44. Fombassoa, G, E and Cincerab,M.(2016). The Effect of Subsidies on R&D Investment and Success – Do Subsidy History and Size Matter?. International Centre for Innovation Technology and Education.
45. Fernandez-Ribas, A. and P. Shapira (2009). ‘The role of national and regional innovation programmes in stimulating international cooperation in innovation’, International Journal of Technology Management, 48, 473–498.
46. Gelabert, L., A. Fosfuri and J.A. Tribo (2009). ‘Does the effect of public support for R&D depend on the degree of appropriability?’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 57, 736–767.
47. Georghiou, L., Clarysse, B. 2006. Introduction and synthesis, in: OECD (Ed.), Government R&D funding and company behaviour: Measuring behavioural additionality, OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 9-38.
48. Goolsbee, Austan. 1997. Investment tax incentives, prices and the supply of capital goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(1): 121-48.
49. Guceri,I.(2016).Will the real R&D employees please stand up? Effects of tax breaks on firm level outcomes ,Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, Working paper series.
50. Guceri, I., & Liu, L. (2015) .‘Effectiveness of fiscal incentives for R&D: quasi-experimental evidence’, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
51. Guellec, D. and van Pottelsberghe, B. (2003) .The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D. Economics of Innovation and NewTechnologies 12(3): 225-244.
52. Grilli, L. and S. Murtinu (2012). ‘Do public subsidies affect the performance of new technology based firms? The importance of evaluation schemes and agency goals’, Prometheus, 30, 97–111.
53. Guellec, D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2003). ‘The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12, 225–243.
54. Hall, B.H. (1993). ‘R&D tax policy during the eighties: Success or failure?’, Tax Policy and the Economy, 7, 1–36.
55. Hewitt-Dundas, N. and S. Roper (2010). ‘Output additionality of public support for innovation: Evidence for Irish manufacturing plants’, European Planning Studies, 18, 107–122.
56. Hujer, R. and D. Radic´ (2005). ‘Evaluating the impacts of subsidies on innovation activities in Germany’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52, 565–586.
57. Herrera, L. and E.R. Bravo Ibarra (2010). ‘Distribution and effect of R&D subsidies: A comparative analysis according to firm size’, Intangible Capital, 6, 272–299.
58. Huang,Ch,&Yang,Ch.(2009).Tax Incentives and R&D Activity: Firm-Level Evidence from Taiwan,Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series 102.
59. Hand,C, L.(2012). Public Policy Design and Assumptions About Human Behavior, Western Political Science Association’s Annual Conference, Arizona State University.
60. Haegeland, Torbjørn and Jarle Møen. (2007). Input additionality in the Norwegian R&D tax credit scheme. report 2007/47, Statistics Norway.
61. IMF, OECD, UN AND WORLD BANK (2015).Options for Low Income Countries’ Effective and Efficient Use of Tax Incentives for Investment . A report to the G-20 development working group.
62. Kazan, H.,Baydar,M(2014).R&D Expenditures, New Product Introductions, and Sales Performance with Application to the Furniture Industry International Journal of Operations and Logistics Management,Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 30-41 .
63. Kizim, N. A. & Kasyanova, L. V. (2012). Classification of Tools of Tax Incentives of Innovations [Klasyfikatsiya instrumentiv podatkovogo stymuljuvannja innovatsiy] // Problemy ekonomiky, 4, pp. 23-29.
64. Klette, Tor Jakob & Møen, Jarle, (2011). "R&D investment responses to R&D subsidies: A theoretical analysis and a microeconometric study," Discussion Papers 2011/15, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
65. Köhler,Ch.,Laredo,PhandRammer,Ch.(2012).The Impact and Effectiveness of Fiscal Incentives for R&D Nesta Working Paper No. 12/01.
66. Ladinska,G,E .,Non,M and Straathof,B.(2015). More R&D with tax incentives? A meta-analysis. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis .
67. Lach, S. (2002) .Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. Journal of Industrial Economics 50(4): 369-390.
68. Lerner, J. (1999). The Government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72, 285-318.
69. Link, A., & Scott, J. (2013). Public R&D subsidies, outside private support, and employment growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22, 537-550
70. Liu, P. and Tsai, C. (2007), The Influence of Innovation Management on New Product Development Performance in Taiwan’s Hi-Tech Industries. Research Journal of Business Management, 1: 20-29.
71. Lokshin, B. and Mohnen, P. (2013). Do r&d tax incentives lead to higher wages for r&d workers? evidence from the netherlands. Research Policy, 42(3):823 – 830.
72. Liakhovets,O(2014).Tax Incentives Effectiveness for the Innovation Activity of Industrial Enterprizes in Ukraine, Economics & Sociology, Vol. 7, No 1, 2014, pp. 72-84.
73. Lokshin, B. and Mohnen, P. (2012). How effective are level-based R&D tax credits? Evidence from the Netherlands. Applied Economics, 44(12):1527–1538.
74. Mamuneas, T.P. and M.I. Nadiri (1996). ‘Public R&D policies and cost behavior of the US manufacturing industries’, Journal of Public Economics, 63, 57–81.
75. Mamuneas, T.P. (1999). ‘Spillovers from publicly financed R&D capital in high-tech
76. industries’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17, 215–239.
77. Meeusen, W. and Janssens, W. (2001). Substitution versus additionality: econometric evaluation by means of micro-economic data of the efficacy and efficiency of R&D subsidies to firms in the Flemish region. CESIT Discussion paper No 2001/01, University of Antwerp.
78. Mulkay, B. and J. Mairesse (2013). ‘The R&D tax credit in France: Assessment and ex ante evaluation of the 2008 reform’, Oxford Economic Papers, 65 (3), 746–766.
79. OECD (2002).Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, 6th edn, Paris: OECD.
80. Ozcelik, E. and E. Taymaz (2008). ‘R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience’, Research Policy, 37, 258–275.
81. Parsons, M. (2011). Rewarding Innovation: Improving Federal Tax Support for Business R&D in Canada, C.D. Howe Institute, No. 334: September, pp. 1-23.
82. ørensen, A., Kongsted, H.C. and Marcusson, M. (2003) .R&D, public innovation policy, and productivity: the case of Danish manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12(2): 163-178.
83. Radicic,D. Pugh, G. Hollanders, H. Wintjes, Rene and Fairburn, Jon.(2015). The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy.
84. Schneider, C. and R. Veugelers (2010).‘On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how(not) to policy support them’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 969–1007.
85. Sandelowski, M., and Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer.
86. Stemler, Steve (2001).AN over view of content analysis.Practical Assessment,Research & Evaluation, Vol7 (17).
87. Salamon L M, (2002). "The new governance and the tools of public action: an introduction", in The tools of government: a guide to the new governance Eds L M Salamon, O V Elliott, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1-47
88. Sissoko.a.(2013). R&D subsidies and firm-level exports: evidence from france.UCL.
89. Song ,J. G.(2007). The impact of fiscal incentives for R&D investment in Korea. OECD_TIP.
90. Technopolic Group & Mioir (2012). Evaluation of Innovation Activities. Guidance on methods and practices. Study funded by the European Commission, Directorate for Regional Policy.
91. Teirlinck, P. and A. Spithoven (2012). ‘Fostering industry–science cooperation through public funding: Differences between universities and public research centres’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 37 (5), 676–695.
92. United Nations,)2000(. Tax Incentives and Foreign Direct Investment,A Global Survey, Geneva, ASIT Advisory Studies.No. 16.
93. Wallsten, S. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31, 82-100.
94. Zimmer , L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), .318-311