Governmental Research Support Programs and Private Entities in Slovakia

Open access

Abstract

The paper analyses public subsidies aimed to enhance development and innovation in the Slovakian private sector. The paper reviews theoretical approaches of the necessity of public support to research and development activities in order to increase private investment in research and development. An overview of research and development support tools in Slovakia is presented. The analytical part of the work is oriented on a comparative analysis of two granting agencies in Slovakia [Agency for Research and Development (ARD) and Agency of Operational Program Research and Development (OPRD)]. Special attention is given to direct public financial support. Logit analysis showed a relationship between success of grant applicants and their characteristics. We find that the following have impact on success of the application: Age of the company, amount of the grant required, legal form of the company, and the agency to which the application for grant was submitted. Applicants with legal form Ltd. (limited liability company) have a higher chance of receiving grant than other legal forms. The highest chance of success has a request for a grant of up to 500.000 €. According to the results of our analysis, the chance to obtain a grant decreases with each passing year.

References

  • AGHION, P.; HOWITT, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica. 1992, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 323-351.

  • ARROW, K. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. In: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 1962. ISBN: 0-87014-304-2.

  • BALÁŽ, V. (2005). Politika Inovácií V Slovenskej Republike. Politická ekonomie. 2005, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 513-526.

  • BARAJAS, A.; HUERGO, E. (2010). International R&D cooperation within EU framework programe: the case of spanish firms. In Economics of Innovation and new technology - Special Issue on the Role and Dynamics of Corporate R&D. 2010, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 87-111.

  • BUSOM, I. (2000). Empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies. In Economics of innovation and new technology. 2000. Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 111-148.

  • CZARNITZKI, D.; FIER, A. (2002). Do innovation subsidies crowd out private investment? Evidence from German service sector. Applied Economics Quarterly. 2002, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 1-25.

  • ČAPLÁNOVÁ, A.; SIVÁK, R.; HUDSON, J. (2012). Vplyv priamych zahraničných investícií na inovačnú činnosť firiem. Politická ekonomie. 2012, Vol 60, No. 6, pp. 764779.

  • DUBRAVSKÁ, M.; Širá, E. (2014). Analýza vybraných ukazovatel'ov rozvoja ino-vatívneho prostredia v SR a ČR. In XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách. Sborník příspěvků. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, (ISBN 978-80-210-6840-7, p. 194-200)

  • DUGUET, E. (2004). Are subsidies a substitute or a complement to privately funded R&D? Evidence from France using propensity score methods for non-experimental data. Revue Economie Politique. 2004, Vol. 114. No. 2 pp. 263-292.

  • EUROPEAN COMISSION. (2011). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011. [PRO INNO Europe®]. European Union 2012. ISBN 978-92-79-23174-2. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011_en.pdf

  • EUROPEAN COMISSION. (2011). Lessons from a Decade of Innovation Policy -What can be learnt from the INNO Policy TrendChart and The Innovation Union Scoreboard - Executive Summary.

  • EUROPEAN COMISSION. (2013). Research and Innovation Performance in Slovakia -Country Profile. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 97892-79-30866-6.

  • GEOGHEGAN-QUINN, M. (2010). Address by Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. Príspevok prezentovaný pred Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs, Dublin, 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/speeches-press_releases/maire-geoghegan-quinn-speech-european-affairs-committee_en.htm

  • GRIFFITH, R. (2000). How important is business R&D for economic growth and should the government subsidise it? London: Institue for Fiscal studies, 2000. ISBN 1903274-13-3.

  • GROSSMAN, G. M.; HELPMAN, E. (1994). Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1994. Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23-44.

  • HERRERA L.; IBARRA B. (2010). Distribution and effect of R&D subsidies: A comparative analysis according to firm size. Intangible capital. 2010. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 272299.

  • HESHMATI, A.; LOOF, H. (2005). The impact of public funds on private R&D investment. New evidence from a firm level innovation study [MTT Discussion Papers 3 -11682] Agrifood Research Finland. 2005.

  • HULYA, U. (2004). R&D, innovation, and economic growth: an empirical analysis [Working Paper No. 04/185] International Monetary Fund: Research department, 2004.

  • JONES, C. (1995). R&D based model of economic growth. Journal of political economy. 1995, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 759-784.

  • JONES C.; WILIAMS J. (2000). Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D . Journal of Economic Growth. 2000, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 65-85.

  • KOTULIČ, R. (2006). Foreign Direct Investments and Their Influence on Economic Growth and Regional Development. Review of Economic Perspectives. 2006. No. 2, pp. 15-25. ISSN: ISSN 1804-1663.

  • KUNCL, M. (2010). Cesta k obnově růstu: inovace, pracovní místa a čistý růst (globální fórum OECD 2010 v Paříži). Politická ekonomie. 2010, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 830 - 837.

  • LACH S. (2002). Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. The journal of industrial economics. 2002, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 369-390.

  • LEVIN, R. C., KLEVORICK, A. K., NELSON, R. R., WINTER, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 1987, Vol. 3, pp. 783-832.

  • LUCAS R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of monetary economics. 1988. Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 3-42.

  • MANSFIELD, E.; SCHWARTZ, M.; WAGNER, S. (1981). Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study. Economic Journal. 1981, Vol. 91, pp. 907-918.

  • MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC. (2011). Minerva 2.0 -Slovensko do prvej ligy. Uznesenie vlády Slovenskej republiky.

  • MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC. (2014). Čerpanie štruktu-rálnych fondov, Kohézneho fondu a Európskeho fondu pre rybné hospodárstvo k 31.12.2013.

  • MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC. (2007). Inovačná straté-gia SR na roky 2007 až 2013.

  • MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND SPORT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC. (2010). Dlhodobý zámer štátnej vednej a technickej politiky do roku 2015.

  • PESSOA, A. (2010). R&D and economic growth: How strong is the link? Economic Letters. 2010, Vol. 107, No. 2, pp. 152-154.

  • PRNO, I. (2008). Investičná a inovačná politika. Bratislava: Merkury s.r.o, 2008. 218 s. ISBN 978-80-89143-85-6.

  • ROMER, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy. 1990, Vol. 5, No. 98, pp. 71-102.

  • SEGERSTROM, P.S.; T. C. A. ANANT, T., C., A.; DINOPOULOS,. (1990). A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle. The American Economic Review. 1990, Vol. 80, No. 5, pp. 1077-1091.

  • Science and Technology Policy (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2014, from http://sovva.sk/science-and-technology-policy

  • ÚRAD VLÁDY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY. 2010. Lisabonská stratégia a Slovensko. 2010.

  • ZACHARIADIS M. (2004). R&D, innovation, and technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects. Canadian Journal of Economics. 2003, Vol. 36, No.3, pp. 566-586.

  • ZEMPLINEROVÁ, A. (2010). Inovační aktivita firem a konkurence. Politická ekonomie. 2010, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 747-760.

  • ZENG J. (2000). Innovative vs. imitative R&D and economic growth. Journal of Development economics. 2000, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 499-528.

Review of Economic Perspectives

Národohospodárský obzor; The Journal of Masaryk University

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.262
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.516

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 27 27 17
PDF Downloads 4 4 3