Matthew effect, capabilities and innovation policy: the Argentinean case

References

• Aerts, K., and T. Schmidt. 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. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguer, A., V. Moori Koenig, and M. Carugati. 2015. “Análisis de las nuevas empresas adjudicatarias del FONTAR durante el periodo 2008–2012.” Working Paper, February. MINCyT.
   Google Scholar
• Anlló, G., and D. Suarez. 2008. “Innovación: algo más que I + D. Evidencias Iberoamericanas a partir de las encuestas de innovación: construyendo las estrategias empresarias competitivas.” In El Estado de la Ciencia. Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericanos/ Interamericanos, edited by RICyT, 73–103. Buenos Aires: RICyT.
   Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C. 1997. “The Economics of Path-dependence in Industrial Organization.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 15 (6): 643–675. doi:10.1016/s0167-7187(97)00006-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C., and F. Crespi. 2013. “The “Matthew Effect” in R&D Public Subsidies: The Italian Evidence.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80: 1523–1534. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora, A., and A. Gambardella. 1997. “Public Policy Towards Science: Picking Stars or Spreading the Wealth ?” Revue d'économie industrielle 79 (1): 63–75. doi: 10.3406/rei.1997.1653
   Google Scholar
• Aschhoff, B. 2009. “Who Gets the Money? The Dynamics of R&D Project Subsidies in Germany.” Zew Discussion Paper No. 08-018.
   Google Scholar
• Barletta, F., M. Pereira, D. Suarez, and G. Yoguel. 2016. “Perfil de I + D en firmas industriales argentinas: la necesidad de construir capacidades.” Documentos de trabajo IdeI, 15-2016. Disponible en. http://www.ungs.edu.ar/ms_idei/publicaciones/.
   Google Scholar
• Boeing, P. 2016. “The Allocation and Effectiveness of China’s R&D Subsidies - Evidence from Listed Firms.” Research Policy 45 (9): 1774–1789. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespi, F., and C. Antonelli. 2012. “Matthew Effects and R&D Subsidies: Knowledge Cumulability in High-tech and Low-tech Industries.” Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia 71: 5–31.
   Google Scholar
• Crespi, Gustavo, Pablo D’Este, Roberto Fontana, and Aldo Geuna. 2011. “The Impact of Academic Patenting on University Research and its Transfer.” Research Policy 40 (1): 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespi, G., E. Fernandez-Arias, and E. Stein. 2014. Rethinking Productive Development: Sound Policies and Institutions for Economic Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan US.
   Google Scholar
• Crespi, G., A. Maffioli, P. Mohnen, and G. Vázquez. 2011. Evaluating the Impact of Science, Technology and Innovation Programs: A Methodological Toolkit. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, G. 1984. “Panel Data.” In Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 2, edited by Z. Griliches, and M. Intrilligator, 1247–1318. Amsterdam: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Czarnitzki, D., and C. Lopes-Bento. 2013. “Value for Money? New Microeconometric Evidence on Public R&D Grants in Flanders.” Research Policy 42 (1): 76–89. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David, P. 1994. “Positive Feedback and Research Productivity in Science: Reopening Another Black Box.” In Economics of Technology, edited by O. Grandstrand, 54–89. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Duguet, E. 2003. “Are R&D Subsidies a Substitute or a Complement to Privately Funded R&D? Evidence from France using Propensity Score Methods for Non-experimental Data.” Cahiers de la MSE – EUREQua 2003(75). http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/pe/papers/0411/0411007.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dutrenit, G., and J. Katz. 2005. “Innovation, Growth and Development in Latin-America: Stylized Facts and a Policy Agenda.” Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 7 (2-3, Innovation and Economic development: Lessons from Latin America): 105–130. doi: 10.5172/impp.2005.7.2-3.105
   Google Scholar
• Dutrenit, G., and J. Sutz. 2014. National Innovation Systems, Social Inclusion and Development. The Latin American Experience. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Erbes, A., and D. Suarez. 2016. Repensando el desarrollo latinoamericano. Una discusión desde los sistemas de innovación. Buenos Aires: UNGS.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M., and M. Kelly. 2001. “Winning an Award from the Advanced Technology Program: Pursuing R&D Strategies in the Public Interest and Benefiting From a Halo Effect.” ATP program, NISTIR 6577, US.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D. 2012. “Why Is It So Difficult to Translate Innovation Economics into Usefuland Applicable Policy Prescriptions?” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, edited by J. Lerner, and S. Stern, 673–678. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ganelli, Giovanni. 2003. “Useful Government Spending, Direct Crowding-out and Fiscal Policy Interdependence.” Journal of International Money and Finance 22 (1): 87–103. doi:10.1016/S0261-5606(02)00050-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González, X., J. Jaumandreu, and C. Pazo. 2005. “Barriers to Innovation and Subsidy Effectiveness.” RAND Journal of Economics 36 (4): 930–950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González, X., and C. Pazó. 2008. “Do Public Subsidies Stimulate Private R&D Spending?” Research Policy 37 (3): 371–389. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussinger, K. 2008. “R&D and Subsidies at the Firm Level: An Application of Parametric and Semiparametric Two-step Selection Models.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 23: 729–747. doi: 10.1002/jae.1016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, and B. Å. Lundvall. 2007. “Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation.” Research Policy 36 (5): 680–693. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karhunen, H., and J. Huovari. 2015. “R&D Subsidies and Productivity in SMEs.” Small Business Economics 45 (4): 805–823. doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9658-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López, A., A. M. Reynoso, and M. Rossi. 2010. Impact Evaluation of a Program of Public Funding of Private Innovation Activities. An Econometric Study of FONTAR in Argentina. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Malerba, Franco, Luigi Orsenigo, and Pietro Peretto. 1997. “Persistence of Innovative Activities, Sectoral Patterns of Innovation and International Technological Specialization.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 15 (6): 801–826. doi:10.1016/s0167-7187(97)00012-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. 1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science are Considered.” Science 159 (3810): 56–63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MINCyT. 2011. Argentina Innovadora 2020. Plan nacional de ciencia, tecnología e Innovación. Lineamientos estratégicos 2012–2015. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de ciencia, tecnología e innovación productiva.
   Google Scholar
• MINCyT. 2013. Análisis de las empresas beneficiadas con apoyos reiterados del FONTAR. Buenos Aires: Ministerio Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva.
   Google Scholar
• MINCyT. 2015a. Analisis de las nuevas empresas adjudicatarias del fontar durante el periodo 2008-2012. Argentina (mimeo): Ministerio Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires.
   Google Scholar
• MINCyT. 2015b. Encuesta Nacional de Dinámica del Empleo y la Innovación (ENDEI 2010-2012). Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación productiva/ Ministerio de Trabajo, Empleo y Seguridad Social.
   Google Scholar
• Mundlak, Y. 1978. “On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data.” Econometrica 46: 69–85. doi: 10.2307/1913646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. 1991. “Why Do Firms Differ, and How Does it Matter?” Strategic Management Journal 12 (S2): 61–74. doi:10.1002/smj.4250121006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 1997. “Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification.” OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 1997/2.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2012. “Preliminary Indicators and First Results from Review of Innovation Surveys.” Paper presented at the second expert meeting, OECD, Paris, March 20–21.
   Google Scholar
• Peirano, F. 2011. “El FONTAR y la promoción de la innovación en empresas entre 2006 y 2010.” In Investigación científica e innovación tecnológica en Argentina. Impacto fondos de promoción, edited by F. Porta and G. Lugones, 81–132. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira, M., D. Suarez, T. Turrin, and G. Yoguel. 2015. “Política pública e innovación: recurrencia en el acceso al Fondo Tecnológico Argentino (1992–2014).” In XX Reunión Anual de la Red Pymes Mercosur. Bahía Blanca, Octubre.
   Google Scholar
• Porta, F., and G. Lugones. 2011. Investigación científica e innovación tecnológica en Argentina. Impacto de los Fondos de la Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
   Google Scholar
• Radicic, D., G. Pugh, H. Hollanders, and R. Wintjes. 2014. “The impact of innovation support programmes on SME innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: an evaluation for seven EU regions.” UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series #2014-033.
   Google Scholar
• Roper, S., and N. Hewitt-Dundas. 2008. “Innovation Persistence: Survey and Case-study Evidence.” Research Policy 37 (1): 149–162. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suarez, D. 2014. “Persistence of Innovation in Unstable Environments: Continuity and Change in the Firm’s Innovative Behavior.” Research Policy 43 (4): 726–736. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suarez, D. 2015. “Innovative Strategies: When Path Dependence Turns into Path Creation. Innovation and Performance in the Argentinean Manufacturing Sector.” Globelics Working Paper Series No. 2015-04, ISBN: 978-87-92923-09-7. http://www.globelics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GWP-2015-04.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tanayama, T. 2007. “Eligibility, Awareness and the Application Decision: An Empirical Study of Firm Participation in an R&D Subsidy Program.” HECER Discussion Paper No. 161.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D., and G. Pisano. 1994. “The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction.” Industrial and Corporate Change 3 (3): 537–556. doi:10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a.
   Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg, M. 2012. “Can the Nelson-Arrow Paradigm Still be the Beacon of Innovation Policy?” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, edited by J. Lerner and S. Stern, 679–685. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. M. 2005. “Simple Solutions to the Initial Conditions Problem in Dynamic, Nonlinear Panel Data Models with Unobserved Heterogeneity.” Journal of applied econometrics 20 (1): 39–54. doi: 10.1002/jae.770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zúñiga-Vicente, J. Á., C. Alonso-Borrego, F. J. Forcadell, and José I. Galán. 2014. “Assessing the Effect of Public Subsidies on Firm R&D Investment: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Surveys 28 (1): 36–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00738.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar