References

• Aerts, Kris and Dirk Czarnitzki. 2004.Using innovation survey data to evaluate R&D policy: The case of Belgium.ZEW Discussion Paper 04-55, Mannheim, (also appeared as Research Report OR 0439, KU Leuven, Dept. of Applied Economics). Available at ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp0455.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bergman, Rouven and Gunther Friedl. 2008. “Controlling innovative projects with moral hazard and asymmetric information.” Research Policy 37(9): 1504-1514.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, Nick, Rachel Griffith and John Van Reenen.2002. “Do R&D tax credit work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979-1997.” Journal of Public Economics 85(1): 1-31.
   Google Scholar
• Blundell, Richard and Monica Costa Dias. 2008.Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. The Institute for Fiscal Studies cemmap Working Paper CWP26/08 Available at http://www.cemmap.ac.uk/wps/cwp2608.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, Alex, Richard Dorsett, and Susan Purdon. 2002.The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies. Department for Work and Pensions working paper no.4. Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/4993/1/The_use_of_propensity_score_matching_in_the_evaluation_of_active_labour_market_policies.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Busom. Isabel. 2000. “An empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies.” Economic Innovation and New Technology 9 (2): 111-148.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran, William G. and Donald B. Rubin.1973. “Controlling Bias in Observational Studies.” Sankyha: The Indian Journal of Statistics 35 (4): 417-446.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Wesley M. and Stephen Klepper.1996. “A Reprise of Size and R&D.” Economic Journal 106 (437): 925-51.
   Google Scholar
• David, Paul A., Bronwyn H. Hall and Andrew A. Toole. 2000. “Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of econometric evidence.” Research Policy 29(4-5): 497-529.
   Google Scholar
• Duguet, Emmanuel. 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 (July 2003., University of Paris I Cahier de la MSE EUREQua Working Paper No. 2003.75, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=421920 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.421920
   Google Scholar
• EC – European Commission.2011.Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010, The Innovation Union’s performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation, Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EC – European Commission. 2008.Expert Group on Impacts of R&D Tax Incentives Comparing Practices in R&D Tax Incentives Evaluation, Final Report, October, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in research/pdf/download_en/tax_expert_group_final_report_2009. pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gertler, Paul J. and others.Impact Evaluation in Practice, Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Guellec, Dominique and Bruno Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie. 2003. “The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12(3): 225-243.
   Google Scholar
• Haegeland, Torbjorn and Jarle Moen. 2007.Input Additionality in the Norwegian R&D Tax Credit Scheme. Statistics Norway Report 2007/47, available at http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/02/rapp_200747_en/
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, James J., Hidehiko Ichimura and Petra E. Todd. 1997. “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme.” Review of Economic Studies 64(4): 605-654.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, James J. and Edward Vytlacil.”Econometric Evaluation of Social Programs, Part I: Causal Models, Structural Models and Econometric Policy Evaluation.”In Handbook of EconometricsVol.6, edited by James J Heckman and Edward E. Leamer, Ch. 70, Elsevier, 2007a.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, James J. and Edward Vytlacil. “Econometric Evaluation of Social Programs, Part II: Using the Marginal Treatment Effect to Organize Alternative Econometric Estimators to Evaluate Social Programs, and to Forecast their Effects in New.”In Handbook of Econometrics Vol.6, edited by James J Heckman and Edward E. Leamer, Ch. 71, Elsevier. 2007b.
   Google Scholar
• Hussinger, Katrin. 2006.R&D and subsidies at the firm level: an application of parametric and semi-parametric two-step selection models. Center for European Economic Research (ZEW). 2006-version of the 2003-Discussion Paper No. 03-63. Mannheim. Available at http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/23997/1/dp0363.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Klette, Tor Jakob, Jarle Moen and Zvi Griliches. 2000. “Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies.” Research Policy 29 (4-5): 471–495.
   Google Scholar
• Klette, Tor Jakob and Jarle Moen. 1998.R&D investment responses to R&D subsidies: a theoretical analysis and econometric evidence. Paper Presented at the NBER Summer Institute, July.
   Google Scholar
• Köhler, Christian, Phillipe Larédo and Christian Rammer. 2012.The Impact and Effectiveness of Fiscal Incentives for R&D: Compendium of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, available at http://www.innovation-policy.org.uk/share/01_The%20Impact%20and%20Effectiveness%20of%20Fiscal%20Incentives%20for%20R&D.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lach, Saul.2000.Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel, NBER, Working paper 7943, available at www.nber.org/papers/w7943.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lokshin, Boris and Pierre Mohnen. 2012. “How Effective are Level-based R&D Tax Credits? Evidence from the Netherlands.” Applied Economics 44 (12): 1527-1538.
   Google Scholar
• Lööf, Hans and Almas Heshmati. 2005.The Impact of Public Funding on Private R&D investment, New Evidence from a Firm Level Innovation Study, (Additionality or Crowding Out? On the effectiveness of R&D subsidies). The Royal Institute of technology, Centre of Excellence for studies in Science and Innovation. Available at http://www.infra.kth.se/cesis/documents/WP06.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke and Bjorn Johnson. 1994. “The learning economy”, Journal of Industry Studies, 1 (2): 23-42.
   Google Scholar
• OG - Official Gazette. 2007a. No 116.
   Google Scholar
• OG - Official Gazette. 2007b, No 47.
   Google Scholar
• Ozcelik, Emre and Erol Taymaz. 2008.“R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience.”Research Policy, 37(2): 258-275.
   Google Scholar
• Patel, Pari and Keith Pavitt.“Patterns of Technological Activity: their Measurement and Interpretation.” In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Changeedite by Paul Stoneman, 14-51, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Romer, Paul M. 1986. “Increasing returns and longrun growth.” Journal of Political Economy 94 (5): 1002-37.
   Google Scholar
• Romer, Paul M. 1990. “Endogenous technological change.” Journal of Political Economy98 (5-2): S71 - S102.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, Paul R.and Donald B Rubin. 1983. “The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.” Biometrika, 70 (1): 41–55.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, Donald B. 1980. “Bias Reduction Using Mahalanobis-Metric Matching.” Biometrics 36 (2): 293-298.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, Joseph A.Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper & Row, 1942.
   Google Scholar
• Švaljek, Sandra. 2012.R&D Tax Incentives in Croatia: Beneficiaries and their Benefits. The paper presented on the Conference: Hidden Public Spending Present and Future of the Tax Expenses, p 117-130 Zagreb, Institut za Javne Financije. Available at http://www.ijf.hr/upload/files/file/skrivena_javna_potrosnja/zbornik.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wallsten Scott J. 2000. “The effect of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of Small Business Innovation Research program.” RAND Journal of Economics 31(1): 82-100.
   Google Scholar