ABSTRACT
In this study, we investigate firm heterogeneity with respect to the financial risk that determines the effectiveness of public R&D subsidies. Using panel data of Chinese listed firms from 2007 to 2018, we find that firms with high financial risk are more responsive to government innovation funding. This positive impact is significant with respect to both private R&D spending and patent applications, but only for risky firms. Moreover, simultaneously considering another conventional criterion, firm size, we find that financially risky small-sized firms are most sensitive to public funding. The generalised propensity score and text mining methods are used to control for endogeneity in terms of the quantity and quality of innovation subsidies for robustness checks. This study suggests that priority should be given to small risky firms, as this criterion can screen out enterprises that are innovative and financially constrained.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The risk level is an indicator that combines the Z score and leverage ratio of enterprises using principal component analysis (PCA). Detailed information concerning this point is introduced in Section 2.
2 These authors found that government R&D funding promotes innovation performance but that EU-funded grants for physical and human capital upgrading in Poland were inefficient.
3 Generally, private R&D input is measured via R&D spending, R&D intensity, and innovation-related employment (Aerts & Schmidt, Citation2008; Czarnitzki & Lopes-Bento, Citation2013; González & Pazó, Citation2008; Özçelik & Taymaz, Citation2008). Measures of R&D output include the number of patent applications, new products and services, and citations (Aerts & Czarnitzki, Citation2004; Bérubé & Mohnen, Citation2009; Hewitt-Dundas & Roper, Citation2010; Li et al., Citation2022).
4 In this study, the impacts on firm R&D activities are categorised into three cases: positive (including additionality, neutrality, and partial crowding out), insignificant (full crowding out), and negative (over-full crowding out). In some studies, the impacts on R&D inputs have been classified in further detail by being divided into additionality, neutrality (no effect), partial crowding out, full crowding out, and over-full crowding out, but the positive impact on R&D outputs cannot be distinguished in more specific terms (Boeing, Citation2016; Dimos & Pugh, Citation2016). The main concern of this study is the effectiveness of R&D subsidies in terms of both input and output, and increases in gross R&D spending and innovation outcomes are regarded as positive impacts.
5 A significant number of previous studies have been unpublished working papers or discussion papers (Aschhoff, Citation2009; Czarnitzki & Hottenrott, Citation2011; Schneider & Veugelers, Citation2010), but we mainly review published papers.
6 It remains controversial whether other characteristics, such as age or industry, can improve the effectiveness of public subsidies. Some of the literature has argued that public subsidies for young firms are ineffective (e.g., Koga, Citation2005; Gimenez-Fernandez et al., Citation2020; Koga, Citation2003). Some studies focusing on firm industry types have claimed that government funding is more effective in high-tech industries (Colombo et al., Citation2011; Czarnitzki & Delanote, Citation2015), while others have found evidence suggesting that supporting low-tech industries is more effective (González & Pazó, Citation2008; Hall et al., Citation2009; Becker & Hall, Citation2013). Moreover, while public subsidies are reliably more effective for small businesses, such effects involve greater financial difficulties for small firms rather than a greater potential for innovation (Hall, Citation2002; Hall & Lerner, Citation2010). Therefore, an alternative measure is needed to determine whether innovation subsidies are sufficiently effective to reflect a firm’s enthusiasm and capability that are necessary to innovate.
7 In China, firms listed as distressed are classified into two categories, ST and PT, which indicate firms with two years and three years of consecutive losses, respectively.
8 We use the number of patent applications instead of the number of patents granted because the patent granting procedure lasts some time, and not all patent applications are granted (Bronzini & Piselli, Citation2016). This variable has been widely used by previous studies as a measure of private innovation activity outputs (e.g., Ascani et al., Citation2020; Gilding et al., Citation2020; Gao et al., Citation2021; Wang et al., Citation2022).
9 A Z score lower than 1.8 indicates that the firm is more likely to go bankrupt due to financial difficulties. On the other hand, a score of 3 or higher indicates that the firm is in a safe zone and is unlikely to file for bankruptcy. If the score is between these two points, the firm is in a grey zone and has a moderate likelihood of filing for bankruptcy.
10 The observations of patent applications are less numerous than other observations because the data are available only for the period 2007–2017.
11 The data concerning firm R&D spending covers the period 2007–2018, while the data pertaining to patent applications cover the period 2007–2017. Thus, low- and high-risk groups are divided based on the entire sample, which caused the imbalance between the two groups in terms of R&D output results. We also divided the sample related to R&D outputs into halves in accordance with median risk levels and found the results to be almost the same as those currently reported.
12 We also conducted an analysis of the related words and found that the word ‘transfer’ appears mostly alongside the word ‘technology’.
13 ROA (Cucculelli & Ermini, Citation2013; Hirshleifer et al., Citation2012; Jia et al., Citation2016; Sunder et al., Citation2017), cash holding ratio (Hirshleifer et al., Citation2012; Sunder et al., Citation2017), PPE ratio (Hirshleifer et al., Citation2012; Tian & Wang, Citation2014), and ownerships (Tian & Wang, Citation2014).
14 The percentage of high-school students in the population is closely correlated to the per capita GDP of the province, so the proportion of college students is used as an alternative.
Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one?. Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(5), 806–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011 Czarnitzki, D., & Lopes-Bento, C. (2013). Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders. Research Policy, 42(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.008 González, X., & Pazó, C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, 37(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009 Özçelik, E., & Taymaz, E. (2008). R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience. Research Policy, 37(2), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.001 Aerts, K., & Czarnitzki, D. (2004). Using innovation survey data to evaluate R&D policy: The case of Belgium. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, 04–055. Bérubé, C., & Mohnen, P. (2009). Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative? Canadian Journal of Economics, 42(1), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.01505.x Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2010). Output additionality of public support for innovation: Evidence for Irish manufacturing plants. European Planning Studies, 18(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310903343559 Li, M., Jin, M., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2022). Do subsidies increase firm productivity? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. European Journal of Operational Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.02.029 Boeing, P. (2016). The allocation and effectiveness of China’s R&D subsidies - Evidence from listed firms. Research Policy, 45(9), 1774–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.007 Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy, 45(4), 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.002 Aschhoff, B. (2009). The effect of subsidies on R&D investment and success–Do subsidy history and size matter? ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, 09–032. Czarnitzki, D., & Hottenrott, H. (2011). R&D investment and financing constraints of small and medium-sized firms. Small Business Economics, 36(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9189-3 Schneider, C., & Veugelers, R. (2010). On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 969–1007. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtp052 Koga, T. (2005). RandD subsidy and self-financed RandD: The case of Japanese high-technology start-ups. Small Business Economics, 24, 53–62. Gimenez-Fernandez, E. M., Sandulli, F. D., & Bogers, M. (2020). Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness in innovative start-ups: Investigating the differences in innovation performance between new and older small firms. Research Policy, 49(10), 104049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104049 Koga, T. (2003). Firm size and R&D tax incentives. Technovation, 23(7), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00010-X Colombo, M. G., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2011). R&D subsidies and the performance of high-tech start-ups. Economics Letters, 112(1), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.03.007 Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2015). R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9661-1 González, X., & Pazó, C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, 37(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009 Hall, B. H., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2009). Innovation and productivity in SMEs: Empirical evidence for Italy. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9184-8 Becker, B., & Hall, S. G. (2013). Do R&D strategies in high-tech sectors differ from those in low-tech sectors? An alternative approach to testing the pooling assumption. Economic Change and Restructuring, 46, 183–202. Hall, B. H. (2002). The financing of research and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 35–51. Hall, B. H., & Lerner, J. (2010). The financing of RandD and innovation. In Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 609–639). North-Holland. Bronzini, R., & Piselli, P. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.008 Ascani, A., Bettarelli, L., Resmini, L., & Balland, P. A. (2020). Global networks, local specialisation and regional patterns of innovation. Research Policy, 49(8), 104031. Gilding, M., Brennecke, J., Bunton, V., Lusher, D., Molloy, P. L., & Codoreanu, A. (2020). Network failure: Biotechnology firms, clusters and collaborations far from the world superclusters. Research Policy, 49(2), 103902. Gao, Y., Hu, Y., Liu, X., & Zhang, H. (2021). Can public R&D subsidy facilitate firms’ exploratory innovation? The heterogeneous effects between central and local subsidy programs. Research Policy, 50(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104221 Wang, C., Shen, D., & Li, Y. (2022). Aggregate investor attention and Bitcoin return: The long short-term memory networks perspective. Finance Research Letters, 49, 103143. Cucculelli, M., & Ermini, B. (2013). Risk attitude, product innovation, and firm growth. Evidence from Italian manufacturing firms. Economics Letters, 118, 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.11.006 Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. (2012). Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? The Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1457–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01753.x Jia, N., Tian, X., Zhang, W., Xuan, T., & Weining, Z. (2016). The holy grail of teamwork: Management team synergies and firm innovation. Working Paper, Tsinghua University, August. https://weibo.com/2003780975/FAd401OH5?sudaref=www.baidu.com&sudaref=passport.weibo.com&display=0&retcode=6102&type=comment#_rnd1521647452011. Sunder, J., Sunder, S. V., & Zhang, J. (2017). Pilot CEOs and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(1), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.11.002 Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. (2012). Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? The Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1457–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01753.x Sunder, J., Sunder, S. V., & Zhang, J. (2017). Pilot CEOs and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(1), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.11.002 Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. (2012). Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? The Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1457–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01753.x Tian, X., & Wang, T. Y. (2014). Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 211–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr130 Tian, X., & Wang, T. Y. (2014). Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 211–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr130 Additional information
Funding
This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education [2021R1A6A1A14045741].
Notes on contributors
Haizhen Jin
Haizhen Jin is a research fellow in the Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Management at the National University of Singapore. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Seoul National University. Her research interests include innovation strategy and policy, technology management, institutional economics, and the Chinese economy.
Hyerim Lee
Hyerim Lee is a specialist at the Center for Regulatory Studies at Korea Development Institute (KDI), South Korea. She got her Ph.D. in Economics from Seoul National University. Her field of research focuses on corporate finance, industrial organization, and innovation policy.