|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
The impact of state development institutionson the innovative behavior of firms: qualitative effects
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-2-109-135
Abstract
Basing on a series of in-depth interviews with top executives of Russian innovation companies, the paper analyzes qualitative effects generated by the support from the state development institutions. Non-financial impacts, in particular, changes in firms’ innovation behavior, turned out to be quite significant. At the same time, tightening of formal control of the development institutions increases the risks and costs faced by the supported companies. We have identified two models of firms’ innovation behavior associated with different demand for public support instruments. These models are conditioned not so much to firms’ characteristics, but rather by the values of top managers and their views on appropriate forms of state intervention in innovation processes.
Keywords
development institutions,
support of innovation,
qualitative effects of policies,
innovative behavior of firms
JEL: D22; H59; L20; L21; L25; L26; O38
About the Authors
Y. Simachev
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. Kuzyk
Interdepartmental Analytical Center; Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Auzan A. A., Nikishina E. N. (2013). Economic dynamics in the long run: The role of informal institutions. Zhurnal ekonoicheckoi teorii, No. 4, pp. 48—57. (In ¬Russian).
2. Ivanov D. S., Kuzyk M. G., Simachev Yu. V. (2012). Fostering innovation performance of russian manufacturing enterprises: New opportunities and limitations. Foresight-Russia, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 18—41. (In Russian).
3. Simachev Yu., Kuzyk M., Ivanov D. (2012). Russian financial development institutions: Are we on the right way? Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 7, pp. 4—29. (In Russian).
4. Simachev Yu. V., Kuzyk M. G., Feygina V. V. (2014). Public support of innovation in Russia: What can we say about tax incentives and public funding? Russian Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 7—38. (In Russian).
5. Tambovtsev V. (2015). The myth of the “culture code” in economic research. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 85—106. (In Russian).
6. Yasin Ye., Lebedeva N. M. (2009). Culture and innovation: Approach to the problem. Foresight, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 16—26. (In Russian).
7. Antonelli C., Crespi F., Scellato G. (2012). Inside innovation persistence: New evidence from Italian micro-data. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 341-353.
8. Antonelli C., Crespi F. (2013). The “Matthew effect” in R&D public subsidies: The Italian evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80, No. 8, pp. 1523-1534.
9. Buisseret T., Cameron H., Georghiou L. (1995). What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10, No. 4-6, pp. 587-600.
10. Clarysse B., Wright M., Mustar P. (2009). Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp. 1517-1533.
11. D’Este P., Iammarino S., Savona M., von Tunzelmann N. (2012). What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 482-488.
12. Falk R. (2007). Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria. Research Policy, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 665-679.
13. Flick U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Georghiou L., Clarysse B. (eds.) (2006). Introduction and synthesis. In: Government R&D funding and company behaviour: Measuring behavioural additionality. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 9-38.
15. Guellec D., Van Pottlesberghe B. (2003). The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 225-244.
16. Hall B., Maffiolly A. (2008). Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America. European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 172-198.
17. Hogan J., Dolan P., Donnelly P. (2009). Approaches to qualitative research: Theory and its practical application. Cork: Oak Tree Press.
18. Merton R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, Vol. 159, No. 3810, pp. 56-63.
19. Pavitt K. (1998). The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 793-805.
20. Smith K. (1995). Interactions in knowledge systems: foundations, policy implications and empirical methods. STI-Review, No. 16, pp. 69-102.
21. Teubal M. (2002). What is the systems perspective to Innovation and Technology Policy (ITP) and how can we apply it to developing and newly industrialized economies? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-257.
Review
For citations:
Simachev Y., Kuzyk M. The impact of state development institutionson the innovative behavior of firms: qualitative effects. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2017;(2):109-135. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-2-109-135
Views:
1108
Email this article 
