nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.12.2015

R&D subsidies and productivity in SMEs

verfasst von: Hannu Karhunen, Janne Huovari

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of R&D subsidies on labour productivity. We use firm-level data on Finnish SMEs from 2000 to 2012 and apply a combined matching and difference-in-differences method to control for selection bias. We find no significant positive effect on labour productivity over the five-year period after a subsidy is granted. However, the results vary over time and indicate a 2–4 % negative effect on SMEs’ annual productivity growth one to 2 years after the subsidy year. Nevertheless, subsidies generate a positive employment effect and enhance firm survival. Additional scrutiny reveals that subsidies positively affect the human capital level of low-skill firms.

Vorheriger Artikel Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time

Nächster Artikel Effectiveness of regulatory interventions on firm behavior: a randomized field experiment with e-commerce firms

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Empirical literature indicates that returns on R&D differ by firm characteristics (e.g. Hall et al. 2008; Hall et al. 2009; Ortega-Argilés et al. 2010; Ortega-Argilés et al. 2011).

Many authors have reported that R&D subsidies stimulate private investments (e.g. Almus and Czarnitzki 2003; Hyytinen and Toivanen 2005; Czarnitzki 2006; Görg and Strobl 2007; Özçelik and Taymaz 2008; Aerts and Schmidt 2008; Hussinger 2008; Meuleman and De Maeseneire 2012; Czarnitzki and Lopes-Bento 2013), but studies have also found that these funds partly or fully crowd out some private investments (e.g. Wallsten 2000; Lach 2002; Busom 2000; González and Pazó 2008; Gelabert et al. 2009; Bronzini and Iachini 2014).

Subsidies have been found to enhance employment growth (e.g. Girma et al. 2008; Koski and Pajarinen 2013, Link and Scott 2013; Moretti and Wilson 2014), patent development/innovations (e.g. Czarnitzki et al. 2007; Bérubé and Mohnen 2009) and sales/investments (e.g. Criscuolo et al. 2012; Einiö 2014; Cerqua and Pellegrini 2014).

Recent empirical literature indicates that absorptive capacity (or “learning capacity”) at a regional level is essential for subsidy effectiveness (e.g. Griffith et al. 2003, 2004; Becker et al. 2013).

This information is based on official statistics by Statistics Finland. E-publication (in English) is available at: http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/tkke/2011/tkke_2011_2012-10-31_tie_001_en.html.

For more information on Tekes programs, see: http://www.tekes.fi/en.

Alternatively, productivity can be measured by calculating total factor productivity via a production function rather than calculating labour productivity from the raw data. We use labour productivity to avoid a priori assumptions, which are needed to estimate total factor productivity.

The causal interpretation of the results may also be sensitive to log linearisation (see Fisher and Ciani 2014).

In our sample, 899 firms received only a direct subsidy and 64 firms received only a loan-based subsidy (for more details on R&D subsidies, see Table W1 in the online appendix). The results remained qualitatively similar when we focused on firms that received only a direct subsidy (see online appendix Table W9).

The DID method is based on differencing outcomes before and after a treatment. Thus, if a firm can anticipate that it will receive a subsidy (and changes its behaviour, e.g. hires new employees), then DID estimates can be biased (for details, see Heckman and Smith 1999). As robustness checks, we also repeated the estimations by matching firms three and four years before a subsidy was granted. Again, our results remained qualitatively unchanged.

Following Aerts and Schmidt (2008), employment and turnover are in logarithms to avoid potential biases caused by skewness of the data.

We plot averages of our outcome variables over the three-year period before the subsidy year (and after) to show descriptively that the outcomes in the subsidised firm group developed in parallel to those in the unsubsidised firm group. Figures are available in the online appendix.

This might indicate that funding authorities are attempting to follow the so-called picking-the-winner strategy (i.e. subsidies might be granted to relatively good firms rather than to marginal projects or firms that suffer market malfunctions, e.g. Cantner and Kösters 2012).

Table W2 in the online appendix further shows how the matching method succeeds in removing significant differences for all used covariates between subsidised and unsubsidised firms.

We also rerun our estimations by excluding the covariates that measure employees’ education and earlier subsidies from the matching model. In this case, productivity growth was more rapid, and the effect was significant and positive five years after the treatment. This indicates that without controlling for firm-specific education variables and covariates regarding earlier subsidies in the estimations, the estimation results would be biased upwards [as noted earlier by González and Pazó (2008)]. This finding highlights the need to consider the selection problem in different evaluations of subsidies.

By higher tertiary education, we mean employees who have master’s, licentiate or PhD degrees. The median share of employees with higher tertiary education (in our sample of subsidised firms) is 4.6 %. The correlation between firm size and the share of higher tertiary education is relatively small (−0.12); see online appendix Figure W2 for illustration. As a robustness test, we also study the subsidy effect on productivity by firm size, but the results are mainly insignificant (online appendix Table W5).

It should be stressed that the goal of the R&D subsidies is also to enhance firms’ innovation capacity, the benefits of which (such as enhanced productivity) are observed in the long term.

We focus on the three-year period after the treatment year because employee education data were not available for later years.

In online appendix Table W6, we show that our results by firm skill groups are robust even if we use different cut-off points for low- and high-skill firms.

We focus on subsidy years 2004–2007 to study possible placebo effects due to data constraints. Placebo effect is calculated by moving one year “window” (a difference between reference year and comparison year) to pre-treatment period.

In online appendix (Panel D of Table W3), we match firms exactly by sector, because propensity score matching might compare firms from different sectors. Results show that this has no impact on our results. Table W10 of online appendix shows that initial decline in productivity is, on average, more significant (also statistically) in industrial sector than in service sector.

In our study period, 32 % of subsidised firms exited our sample during the five-year period.

From our data, we cannot distinguish between mergers, acquisitions and firms that went out of business. Still, most business exits indicate that the business was unsuccessful (Coad 2013). Firm survival is studied similarly in earlier literature (e.g. Hyytinen et al. 2014).

We studied descriptively how starting/initial (year) productivity is related to firm survival. Simple cross-tabulations show that subsidised firms whose initial productivity is below median productivity are more likely to survive than subsidised firms whose initial productivity is above the median (see online appendix Table W11). Descriptive examination suggests that our results are not driven by the possible survivorship bias. This might indicate that subsidies are more important for low-productivity firms.

It should be stressed that we cannot observe whether R&D subsidies also affect unsubsidised firms. Our empirical approach does not allow spillovers (the so-called stable unit treatment value assumption; see Imbens and Wooldridge 2009). If subsidies also affect unsubsidised firms, then the subsidy effect on productivity might be under- or overestimated. When more accurate databases become available for research, it would be interesting to evaluate whether different research results that focus on subsidy effects are affected by this possibility.

Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2009). Matching on the estimated propensity score. NBER Working Paper,. doi:10.3386/w15301.

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, 806–822. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011.CrossRef

Almus, M., & Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21, 226–236. doi:10.1198/073500103288618918.MathSciNetCrossRef

Andries, P., & Czarnitzki, D. (2014). Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement. Small Business Economics, 43, 21–38. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9577-1.CrossRef

Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bartel, A. P., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The comparative advantage of educated workers in implementing new technology. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 1–11. doi:10.2307/1937894.CrossRef

Becker, S. O., Egger, P. H., & Von Ehrlich, M. (2013). Absorptive capacity and the growth and investment effects of regional transfers: A regression discontinuity design with heterogeneous treatment effects. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(4), 29–77. doi:10.1257/pol.5.4.29.

Bernini, C., & 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.CrossRef

Bérubé, C., & Mohnen, P. (2009). Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative? Canadian Journal of Economics, 42, 206–225. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.01505.x.CrossRef

Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M. (2000). Evaluation methods for non-experimental data. Fiscal Studies, 21, 427–468. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x.CrossRef

Bronzini, R., & Iachini, E. (2014). Are incentives for R&D effective? Evidence from a regression discontinuity approach. American Economic Journal Economic Policy, 6(4), 100–134. doi:10.1257/pol.6.4.100.CrossRef

Busom, I. (2000). An empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9, 111–148. doi:10.1080/10438590000000006.CrossRef

Cantner, U., & Kösters, S. (2012). Picking the winner? Empirical evidence on the targeting of R&D subsidies to start-ups. Small Business Economics, 39, 921–936. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9340-9.CrossRef

Cappelen, Å., Raknerud, A., & Rybalka, M. (2012). The effects of R&D tax credits on patenting and innovations. Research Policy, 41, 334–345. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.001.CrossRef

Cerqua, A., & Pellegrini, Guido. (2014). Do subsidies to private capital boost firms’ growth? A multiple regression discontinuity design approach. Journal of Public Economics, 109, 114–126. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.005.CrossRef

Coad, A. (2013). Death is not a success: Reflections on business exit. International Small Business Journal,. doi:10.1177/0266242612475104.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (2009). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. The Economic Journal,. doi:10.2307/2233763.

Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairessec, J. (1998). Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115–158. doi:10.1080/10438599800000031.CrossRef

Criscuolo, C., Martin, R., Overman, H., & Reenen, J. V. (2012). The causal effects of an industrial policy. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper,. doi:10.3386/w17842.MATH

Czarnitzki, D. (2006). Research and development in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of financial constraints and public funding. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 53, 335–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9485.2006.00383.x.CrossRef

Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 1347–1366. doi:10.1002/jae.992.MathSciNetCrossRef

Czarnitzki, D., & Lopes-Bento, C. (2013). Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders. Research Policy, 42, 76–89. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.008.CrossRef

David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & 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.CrossRef

Ebersberger, B. (2011). Public funding for innovation and the exit of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(3), 519–543. doi:10.1007/s00191-010-0186-0.CrossRef

Einiö, E. (2014). R&D subsidies and company performance: Evidence from geographic variation in government funding based on the ERDF population-density rule. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(4), 710–728. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00410.CrossRef

Fisher, P., & Ciani, E. (2014). Dif-in-dif estimators of multiplicative treatment effects (No. 2014-14). Institute for Social and Economic Research.

Gelabert, L., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Does the effect of public support for R&D depend on the degree of appropriability? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57, 736–767. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2009.00396.x.CrossRef

Girma, S., Görg, H., Strobl, E., & Walsh, F. (2008). Creating jobs through public subsidies: An empirical analysis. Labour Economics, 15, 1179–1199. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2007.11.002.CrossRef

González, X., & Pazó, C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, 37, 371–389. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009.CrossRef

Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2007). The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D. Economica, 74, 215–234. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00547.x.CrossRef

Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2003). R&D and absorptive capacity: Theory and empirical evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105, 99–118. doi:10.1111/1467-9442.00007.CrossRef

Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 883–895. doi:10.1162/0034653043125194.CrossRef

Griliches, Z. (1998). R&D and productivity: The econometric evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Hainz, C., & Hakenes, H. (2012). ‘The politician and his banker—How to efficiently grant state aid. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 218–225. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.09.005.CrossRef

Hall, B. H. (2011). Innovation and productivity. NBER Working Paper,. doi:10.3386/w17178.

Hall, B. H., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2008). Employment, innovation, and productivity: Evidence from Italian microdata. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 813–839. doi:10.1093/icc/dtn022.CrossRef

Hall, B. H., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2009). Innovation and productivity in SMEs: Empirical evidence for Italy. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 13–33. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9184-8.CrossRef

Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the Returns to R&D. In: Hall, B. H., & Rosenberg, N. (Eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 1033–1082. doi:10.1016/S0169-7218(10)02008-3.

Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (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.MATHCrossRef

Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65, 261–294. doi:10.1111/1467-937X.00044.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef

Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1999). The pre-programme earnings Dip and the determinants of participation in a social programme. Implications for simple programme evaluation strategies. The Economic Journal, 109, 313–348. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00451.CrossRef

Honjo, Y., Kato, M., & Okamuro, H. (2014). R&D investment of start-up firms: Does founders’ human capital matter? Small Business Economics, 42, 207–220. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9476-x.CrossRef

Huergo, E., & Jaumandreu, J. (2004). How does probability of innovation change with firm age? Small Business Economics, 22(3–4), 193–207. doi:10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022220.07366.b5.CrossRef

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.MathSciNetCrossRef

Hyytinen, A., Pajarinen, M., & Rouvinen, P. (2014). Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates? Forthcoming in. Journal of Business Venturing,. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.10.001.

Hyytinen, A., & Toivanen, O. (2005). Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth? Evidence on the role of public policy. Research Policy, 34, 1385–1403. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.06.004.CrossRef

Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87, 706–710. doi:10.1093/biomet/87.3.706.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef

Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 5–86. doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5.CrossRef

Irwin, D. A., & Klenow, P. J. (1996). High-tech R&D subsidies estimating the effects of Sematech. Journal of International Economics, 40, 323–344. doi:10.1016/0022-1996(95)01408-X.CrossRef

Klette, T. J., Møen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, 471–495. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00086-4.CrossRef

Koski, H., & Pajarinen, M. (2013). The role of business subsidies in job creation of start-ups, gazelles and incumbents. Small Business Economics, 41, 195–214. doi:10.1007/s11187-012-9420-5.CrossRef

Koski, H., & Pajarinen, M. (2014). Subsidies, the shadow of death and labor productivity. Journal of Industry Competition and Trade,. doi:10.1007/s10842-014-0177-1.MATH

Lach, S. (2002). Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50, 369–390. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00182.CrossRef

Lechner, M. (2002). Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 165, 59–82. doi:10.1111/1467-985X.0asp2.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef

Lechner, M., & Wunsch, C. (2013). Sensitivity of matching-based program evaluations to the availability of control variables. Labour Economics, 21, 111–121. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2013.01.004.CrossRef

Leiponen, A. (2005). Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5), 303–323. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.03.005.CrossRef

Lerner, J. (2002). When Bureaucrats meet entrepreneurs: The design of effective public venture capital’ programmes. The Economic Journal, 112, F73–F84. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00684.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2013). Public R&D subsidies, outside private support, and employment growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(6), 537–550. doi:10.1080/10438599.2013.776744.CrossRef

Mairesse, J., & Sassenou, M. (1991). R&D productivity: A survey of econometric studies at the firm level. NBER Working Paper,. doi:10.3386/w3666.

Meuleman, M., & De Maeseneire, W. (2012). Do R&D subsidies affect SMEs’ access to external financing? Research Policy, 41, 580–591. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.001.CrossRef

Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65. doi:10.14208/BF03353817.

Mohnen, P., & Röller, L. H. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431–1450. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2003.12.003.CrossRef

Moretti, E., & Wilson, D. J. (2014). State incentives for innovation, star scientists and jobs: Evidence from biotech. Journal of Urban Economics, 79, 20–38. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2013.07.002.CrossRef

Ortega-Argilés, R., Piva, M., Potters, L., & Vivarelli, M. (2010). Is corporate R&D investment in high-tech sectors more effective? Contemporary Economic Policy, 28, 353–365. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00186.x.CrossRef

Ortega-Argilés, R., Potters, L., & Vivarelli, M. (2011). R&D and productivity: Testing sectoral peculiarities using micro data. Empirical Economics, 41(3), 817–839. doi:10.1007/s00181-010-0406-3.CrossRef

Ortega-Argilés, R., Vivarelli, M., & Voigt, P. (2009). R&D in SMEs: A paradox? Small Business Economics, 33, 3–11. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9187-5.CrossRef

Özçelik, E., & Taymaz, E. (2008). R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience. Research Policy, 37, 258–275. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.001.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, P. R., & 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.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef

Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2002). Is subsidizing entry an optimal policy? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 39–52. doi:10.1093/icc/11.1.39.CrossRef

Takalo, T., Tanayama, T., & Toivonen, O. (2013). Estimating the benefits of targeted R&D subsidies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 255–272. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00280.CrossRef

Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00106-1.CrossRef

Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The effect of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the small business innovation research program. RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82–100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601030.

Wanzenböck, I., Scherngell, T., & Fischer, M. (2013). How do firm characteristics affect behavioural additionalities of public R&D subsidies? Evidence for the Austrian transport sector. Technovation, 33, 66–77. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.006.CrossRef

Zúñiga-Vicente, J., Alonso-Borrego, C., Forcadell, F. J., & Galán, J. I. (2014). Assessing the effect of public subsidies on firm R&D investment: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28, 36–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00738.x.CrossRef

Titel: R&D subsidies and productivity in SMEs
verfasst von: Hannu Karhunen
Janne Huovari
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9658-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

A portfolio perspective on entrepreneurship and economic development

The impact of small- and medium-sized family firms on economic growth

New venture legitimacy: the conditions for angel investors

The gender gap in federal and private support for entrepreneurship

Revisiting native and immigrant entrepreneurial activity

Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time

Premium Partner