Output additionality of R&D subsidy on manufacturing venture firms in Korea

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which R&D subsidy can affect the innovation process of manufacturing venture firms by examining the output additionality measured as both proximal indicators of innovation and distal indicators of growth. Further, the differences in output additionality between the clusters in the subcontracting regime were examined to investigate whether the effect of R&D subsidy can vary depending on subcontracting practices and structure among large enterprises and venture firms.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses survey data of the Korea Venture Business Association conducted in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively, which selects a random sample from venture firms by stratified random sampling method based on the industry sector, size and location for each survey year. This study analyzed the data using an endogenous treatment effects model to estimate the average treatment effect of R&D subsidy, yielding more accurate estimates than a traditional treatment effects model by controlling the unobserved endogenous components.FindingsThis research found that R&D subsidy may not facilitate the process of transformation of innovation into financial growth even though R&D subsidy can facilitate the innovation process and contribute to producing new and improved products. This research also reveals that the relationship between R&D subsidy and innovation performance for firms heavily dependent on subcontracting is generally much weaker than those for independent subcontractors. Further, the present study exhibits that public R&D subsidy for independently subcontracting venture firms is more effective for the growth in both employment and sales than those for subcontracting with large enterprises or other subcontractors.Research limitations/implicationsR&D subsidy for venture firms does not relieve the burden of liability of newness and smallness of venture firms, especially the disadvantage in market penetration and competition. In addition, venture firms subcontracting with large enterprises or other prime subcontractors tend to achieve incremental innovation with the help of the technology and competence of large companies and run stable businesses through a predetermined market.Practical implicationsR&D subsidy for venture firms does not relieve the burden of liability of newness and smallness of venture firms, especially the disadvantage in market penetration and competition. Further policy measures should be implemented so as to identify and eliminate barriers to market acceptance for new products of venture firms.Originality/valueThis research verifies that the effect of R&D subsidy may harmful to the sales growth of venture firms and the output additionality differs with the degree of dependency on subcontracting practices and structure.