SME Performance and Public Support for International RJVs*

Barajas, Ascensión; Huergo, Elena; Martín, Lourdes Moreno

doi:10.1111/jsbm.12221

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A first factor considered in the literature has been public financing, both loans and subsidies (for example, see Bayona-Sáez and García-Marco, 2010). Thus, the various public institutions support the development of collaborative projects between companies and public research organizations (Gutiérrez-Garcia et al, 2010), through financing the initial stages of selection and negotiation of agreements (Miyata, 1996), and later, during the development of the agreement itself (Mytelka, 1991;Busom and Fernández-Ribas, 2008;Barajas, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Institutional Resources As Incentives Of Cooperation For Innmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles of innovation and institutional support in the cooperation agreements

Arranz

Arroyabe

Arróyabe

2019

EJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of obstacles and institutional factors on the cooperation for innovation. The collaboration between different types of organizations has been seen as a strategy that allows the firms to obtain reciprocal benefits, and that incentivises innovation. However, following D’Este et al. (2012) and Antonioli et al. (2017), the authors assume that the decision to cooperate is perceived as a strategy to overcome the obstacles and barriers of the innovation process. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze these questions in the frame of the PITEC-2013 data that covers the period 2012–2013 and includes 5,461 Spanish innovative companies. Findings The results support that an important drive for the firm’s cooperation is to overcome the obstacles of the innovation process. Moreover, the type of partner for cooperation is influenced by the different perception that those companies have on the obstacles to innovation. Additionally, results contribute to the regional literature with new empirical evidence to characterize regions in terms of innovation. Such factors shed new light about the intensity of regional innovation and variables of the cooperation pattern. Originality/value Considering that a fourth of the Spanish companies develop technological cooperation agreements (PITEC, 2013), it is still observed that the level of cooperation and their results are lower with respect to other countries in the environment, therefore to analyze the role of cooperation agreements, evaluating the factors that characterize the dynamics of these agreements, is a critical research question for the Spanish economy.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Resources As Incentives Of Cooperation For Innmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles of innovation and institutional support in the cooperation agreements

Arranz

Arroyabe

Arróyabe

2019

EJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These programs increasingly involve and target small and medium enterprises (SMEs), whichin their R&D activitiesare characterized by limited financial resources (Freel, 1999), low multidisciplinary competences (Bianchi et al, 2010) and tend to adopt informal and unstructured practices (Vossen, 1998). There is increasing evidence that SMEs are able to participate in projects within FPs, which are the main political instrument to support cooperative R&D in Europe (Roediger-Schluga and Barber, 2008;Barajas et al, 2016;Amoroso et al, 2017). The share of SMEs' participation has increased under Horizon 2020: in the FP7, SMEs represented 17 percent of financed participants, while in 2015 and 2016 the SMEs financed within Horizon 2020 Program represented the 23 percent of the total (European Commission, 2015.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of European R&D projects for SMEs’ resource development: an IMP perspective

Ciarmatori

Bocconcelli

Pagano

2018

IMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a contribution on the role of European R&D projects (ERDPs) on small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) resource development. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a qualitative methodology based on a longitudinal case study. The case analysis concerns Gamma, a small high-tech firm based in Italy, active in nanotechnologies since 2005 as a research spin-off and since its establishment active in ERDPs. The analysis is developed along three main phases of development where the company participated to different ERDPs. Findings The empirical analysis highlights that since its establishment, Gamma has been able to increasingly exploit participation in ERDPs, in order to gain access to financial and technological resources. Such active and continuous participation fostered the development of both advanced technological and organizational resources, which then allowed the company to survive and play a growing role as a well-known technology partner in the nanotechnology field in Italy and Europe. Originality/value Adopting an IMP perspective, the paper provides a contribution on the managerial dimension of SMEs’ participation in ERDPs – which represents a neglected topic in the existing literature – on two distinct grounds: resource development process and networking processes. With respect to resource development processes in ERDPs, this case study underscores the relevance of ERDPs for developing both technological and organizational resources, highlighting the relevance of project management-related knowledge. In terms of networking processes, this paper highlights the need to fully understand the interplay of ERDP networks and business networks.

show abstract

“…In this case, the technological capabilities of subsidised firms can be affected not only by public aid but also by spillovers of cooperation among partners. However, most papers that study the impact of public programmes that support RJVs consider R&D collaboration and R&D public support to be an integrated treatment (Benfratello and Sembenelli, 2002;Bayona-Sáez and García-Marco, 2010;Kaiser and Kuhn, 2012;Barajas et al, 2016). An exception is the paper by Czarnitzki et al (2007), who interpret RJVs and subsidies as heterogeneous treatments for a sample of German and Finnish firms.…”

Section: Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, this problem appeared when one of the treatments involved in the combination was 'CDTI loan and European subsidy' or 'All types '. 5 Other studies that use this type of pseudo-instrumental variables approach in similar frameworks are Griffith et al (2006), Huergo and Moreno (2011), and Barajas et al (2012Barajas et al ( , 2016.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R&D support programmes

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to compare the effect of different types of public direct support for R&D projects on firms' technological capabilities. We distinguish between low-interest loans and national and European subsidies. Using data on 4,407 Spanish firms during the period 2002-2005, we estimate a multivariate probit to analyse the determinants of firms' participation in public R&D programmes and, later, the impact of this participation on firms' R&D activities using two different procedures. Regardless of the methodology employed for the analysis, the results suggest that being awarded any type of direct aid clearly increases the probability of conducting R&D activities. In terms of being supported through a unique instrument, the greatest effect corresponds to the case of European grants, where the impact is more than three times larger than the one of loans. As for R&D intensity, the hypothesis of full crowding-out of private R&D is rejected for all types of support. In addition, we find that the impacts of subsidies and loans reinforce each other when they are jointly awarded to SMEs. However, for large firms we cannot rule out the existence of crowding-out effect between subsidies and loans.

show abstract

SME Performance and Public Support for International RJVs*

Cited by 17 publications

References 44 publications

Obstacles of innovation and institutional support in the cooperation agreements

Obstacles of innovation and institutional support in the cooperation agreements

The role of European R&D projects for SMEs’ resource development: an IMP perspective

Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R&D support programmes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About