Investment Crowding Out: Firm-Level Evidence from Northern Germany

References

• Aakvik A. (2001) Bounding a matching estimator: the case of a Norwegian training program, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 63, 115–143. doi:10.1111/1468-0084.00211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abel A. (1982) Dynamic effects of permanent and temporary tax policies in a q model of investment, Journal of Monetary Economics 9, 353–373. doi:10.1016/0304-3932(82)90023-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adda J. and Cooper R. (2000) Balladurette and Juppette: a discrete analysis of scrapping subsidies, Journal of Political Economy, 108, 778–806. doi:10.1086/316096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auerbach A. J. and Hines J. R. (1988) Investment tax incentives and frequent tax reforms, American Economic Review 78, 211–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagella M. and Becchetti L. (1998) Gli effetti di breve periodo delle agevolazioni: il costo del debito, l'offerta di credito, gli investimenti e l'effetto del ciclo, in Bagella M. (Ed.) Gli incentivi di politica industriale: presupposti teorici e valutazioni empiriche. Quaderni di politica industriale No. 21, pp. 34–100. Osservatorio sulle piccole e medie imprese, Mediocredito Centrale, Rome.
   Google Scholar
• Barry P. J. and Robinson L. J. (2001) Agricultural finance: credit, credit constraints and consequences, in Gardner B. L. and Rausser G. C. (Eds) Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Volume 1A, pp. 513-571. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Beason R. and Weinstein D. E. (1996) Growth, economies of scale and targeting in Japan (1955–1990), Review of Economics and Statistics 78, 286–295. doi:10.2307/2109930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergström F. (2000) Capital subsidies and the performance of firms, Small Business Economics 14, 183–193. doi:10.1023/A:1008133217594
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernini C. and Pellegrini G. (2011) How are growth and productivity in private firms affected by public subsidy? Evidence from a regional policy, Regional Science and Urban Economics 41, 253–265. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black D. and Smith J. (2004) How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching?, Journal of Econometrics 121, 99–124. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blancard S., Boussemart J. P., Briec W. and Kerstens, K. (2006) Short- and long-run credit constraints in French agriculture: a directional distance function framework using expenditure-constrained profit functions, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88, 351–364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00863.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsma A., Kancs D. and Ciaian P. (2013) The role of additionality in the EU cohesion policies: an example of firm-level investment support, European Planning Studies 21, 838–853. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.722928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronzini R. and de Blasio G. (2006) Evaluating the impact of investment incentives: the case of Italy's Law 488/1992, Journal of Urban Economics 60, 327–349. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahill C. and Moreddu C. (2005) The role of implementation costs in policy choice – an economist's perspective on the Common Agricultural Policy. Paper presented at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Workshop on Policy-Related Transaction Costs, OECD, Paris, 20–21 January 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Caliendo M. and Kopeinig S. (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching, Journal of Economic Surveys 22, 31–72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannari L., d'Aurizio L. and de Blasio G. (2006) The Effectiveness of Investment Subsidies: Evidence from Survey Data. Occasional Papers No. 4. Banca d'Italia, Rome.
   Google Scholar
• Ciaian P., Falkowski J. and Kancs D. (2012) Productivity and credit constraints: a firm-level propensity score evidence for agricultural farms, Acta Oeconomica 62, 459–487. doi:10.1556/AOecon.62.2012.4.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David P. A., Hall B. H. and Toole A. A. (2000) Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence, Research Policy 29, 497–529. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00087-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duch N., Montolio D. and Mediavilla M. (2009) Evaluating the impact of public subsidies on a firm's performance: a two-stage quasi-experimental approach, Investigaciones Regionales 16, 143–165.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2006a) Commission Methodological Paper Giving Guidelines on the Calculation of Public or Equivalent Structural Spending for the Purposes of Additionality. Working Document No. 3. European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2006b) The EU Rural Development Policy 2007–2013. European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2010) The CAP Towards 2020: Meeting the Food, Natural Resources and Territorial Challenges of the Future. COM(2010) 672 final, 18 November. European Commission, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2012) Rural Development in the European Union – Statistical and Economic Information – 2011. European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Union (2013) Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005, Official Journal of the European Union L 347, 487–548.
   Google Scholar
• Färe R., Grosskopf S. and Lee H. (1990) A nonparametric approach to expenditure-constrained profit maximization, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 574–581. doi:10.2307/1243026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabe T. M. and Kraybill D. (2002) The effects of state economic development incentives on employment growth of establishments, Journal of Regional Science 42, 703–730. doi:10.1111/1467-9787.00278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadd H., Hansson G. and Månsson J. (2009) Evaluating the Impact of Firm Subsidy Using a Multilevel Propensity Score Approach. Working Paper Series No. 3. Centre for Labour Market Policy Research (CAFO), School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Växjö.
   Google Scholar
• Goolsbee A. (1998) Investment tax incentives, prices, and the supply of capital goods, Quarterly Journal of Economics 113, 121–148. doi:10.1162/003355398555540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris R. and Robinson C. (2004) Industrial policy in Great Britain and its effect on total factor productivity in manufacturing plants, 1990–98, Scottish Journal of Political Economy 51, 528–543. doi:10.1111/j.0036-9292.2004.00319.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris R. and Trainor M. (2005) Capital subsidies and their impact on total factor productivity: firm-level evidence from Northern Ireland, Journal of Regional Science 45, 49–74. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4146.2005.00364.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman J., Ichimura H., Smith J. and Todd P. (1998) Characterizing selection bias using experimental data, Econometrica 66, 1017–1098. doi:10.2307/2999630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman J., Ichimura H. and Todd P. (1997) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme, Review of Economic Studies 64, 605–654. doi:10.2307/2971733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman J. and Navarro-Lozano S. (2003) Using Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models. IZA Discussion Papers No. 768. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman J. and Robb R. (1985) Alternative methods for estimating the impact of interventions, in Heckman J. and Singer B. (Eds) Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data, pp. 156–245. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Imbens G. (2003) Sensitivity to exogeneity assumptions in program evaluation, American Economic Review 93, 126–132. doi:10.1257/000282803321946921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut(TI) (2008) Ex-Post-Bewertung des Agrarinvestitionsförderungsprogramms (AFP) im Förderzeitraum 2000 bis 2006 – Schleswig-Holstein. Evaluation Report. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig.
   Google Scholar
• KANTOR (2012) Ex-Post Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes 2000–2006. Final Deliverable Submitted to the European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, KANTOR Management Consultants S.A and Institute for Rural Development and Research, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Kirchweger S. and Kantelhardt J. (2012) Improving farm competitiveness through farm-investment support: a propensity score matching approach. Paper presented at the 131st EAAE Seminar ‘Innovation for Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Areas’, Prague, Czech Republic, 18–19 September 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Koester U. and Senior S. N. (2010) Pillar II: a real improvement of the CAP?, in Senior Nello S. and Pierani P. (Eds) International Trade, Consumer Interests and Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Routledge Studies in the European Economy, pp. 59–77. Routledge, Abingdon.
   Google Scholar
• Lee J. W. (1996) Government intervention and productivity growth, Journal of Economic Growth 1, 391–414. doi:10.1007/BF00141045
   Google Scholar
• Mantel N. and Haenszel W. (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22, 719–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medonos T., Ratinger T., Hruska M. and Spicka J. (2012) The assessment of the effects of investment support measures of the rural development programmes: the case of the Czech republic, AGRIS On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics 4, 35–48.
   Google Scholar
• Michalek J. (2012) Counterfactual impact evaluation of EU rural development programmes – propensity score matching methodology applied to selected EU member states, in Volume 1 – A Micro-Level Approach. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports No. JRC71977. European Commission, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Ortner K. M. (2012) Evaluation of Investment Support in Rural Development Programmes: Results for Selected Measures. Working Paper. Bundesanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft, Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• Pellegrini G. and Centra M. (2006) Growth and efficiency in subsidised firms. Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Evaluation of Labour Market, Welfare and Firms Incentives Programmes', Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Venice, Italy, 11–13 May 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P. R. (2002) Observational Studies. 2nd Edn. Springer, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P. R. and Rubin D. B. (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika 70, 41–55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P. R. and Rubin D. B. (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score, American Statistician 39, 33–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal S. and Strange W. C. (2004) Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies, in Henderson J. V. and Thisse J. F. (Eds) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 4, pp. 2119–2171. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Salvioni C. and Sciulli D. (2011) Farm level impact of rural development policy: a conditional difference in difference matching approach. Paper presented at the 122nd EAAE Seminar ‘Evidence-based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making: Methodological and Empirical Challenges of Policy Evaluation', Ancona, Italy, 17–18 February 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Smith J. (2000) A critical survey of empirical methods for evaluating active labor market policies, Schweiz Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik 136, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Smith J. and Todd P. (2003) Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators? CIBC Human Capital and Productivity Project Working Papers No. 20035. University of Western Ontario, CIBC Human Capital and Productivity Project, London, ON.
   Google Scholar
• Spicka J. and Krause J. (2013) Selected socioeconomic impacts of public support for agricultural biogas plants: the case of the Czech republic, Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 19, 929–938.
   Google Scholar
• Todd P. (2008) Evaluating social programs with endogenous program placement and selection of the treated, in Schultz T. and Strauss J. (Eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 4, pp. 3847–3894. Elsevier/North Holland, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao Z. (2005) Sensitivity of Propensity Score Methods to the Specifications. IZA Discussion Papers No. 1873. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.
   Google Scholar