THE IMPACT OF SUBSIDIES AND INCENTIVES ON FIRMS’ INNOVATION PERFORMANCE

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 76 - 81, 31.12.2024

Ahmet Iskender Oktay Tas

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of government incentives on firm innovation performance in Turkiye, with the aim of providing an evidence-based framework for evaluating the effectiveness of these policies. By examining how various incentive mechanisms influence firms’ research and development (R&D) investments, product innovations, and process improvements, the study seeks to identify the key factors that drive innovation performance across different sectors and firm sizes. This research will contribute to the academic literature by addressing the ongoing debate surrounding the efficiency and effectiveness of government incentives. It will also provide strategic insights for policymakers, enabling the design and implementation of more targeted and efficient support mechanisms. Ultimately, the findings aim to enhance the alignment of government policies with Turkiye’s broader goals of fostering innovation, improving global competitiveness, and achieving sustainable economic growth.
Methodology- The methodology of this study is designed to analyze the impact of government incentives on firm innovation performance in Turkiye using a quantitative research approach. The primary dataset utilized is sourced from the World Bank’s Enterprise Survey (WBES), which covers over 150 countries and provides comprehensive information on various aspects of the business environment, such as financial access, corruption, infrastructure, competition, and firm performance. For Turkiye, six separate surveys conducted between 2002 and 2019 were utilized. These surveys include data from firms of varying sizes, sectors, and regions, capturing both those that received government incentives and those that did not. Based on a thorough literature review, a model tailored to the dataset was developed. The dependent variable is the presence of innovation within firms, measured as a binary outcome, while government incentives serve as the primary independent variable. Firm-specific characteristics frequently highlighted in the literature, such as firm size, age, export intensity, and sectoral distribution, are included as control variables to ensure a comprehensive analysis. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Logit regression technique in Python, chosen for its suitability in estimating the probability of binary outcomes. Diagnostic criteria such as Pseudo R-squared, log-likelihood, LL-Null, and the likelihood ratio test (LLR p-value) were employed to evaluate model fit and statistical significance. The results reveal that government incentives have a statistically significant effect on the likelihood of firm innovation, alongside other firm-specific factors. This methodological framework provides a robust basis for understanding the relationship between government support and innovation performance, offering valuable insights for policymakers.
Findings- The study reveals that R&D expenditures have the most significant impact on innovation, while the effect of firm size is relatively smaller. Government incentives and export ratios positively influence innovation likelihood, consistent with literature. Over time, firm age has shown a growing positive effect on innovation. In Turkiye, the probability of innovation for incentivized firms reached 19% in 2019, compared to 6% for non-incentivized firms, though the overall impact of incentives remains limited. International comparisons highlight Turkiye as having the lowest innovation probability among non-incentivized firms, with incentives providing modest improvements compared to other countries.
Conclusion- The findings highlight the limited effectiveness of government incentives in Turkiye compared to other countries with stronger incentive mechanisms, such as Slovenia and the Czech Republic. To address this, more strategic and targeted policies are needed to enhance the impact of incentives, reverse the declining innovation trends, and align incentive mechanisms with broader innovation strategies. These steps are critical for improving Turkiye's innovation performance, fostering competitiveness, and driving sustainable economic growth.

Keywords

Innovation performance, incentive, subsidies, logit regression, enterprise surveys, R&D expenditure.

References

• Aerts, K., & Czarnitzki, D. (2016). Firm size and R&D effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Economics, 86(4), 409-429.
• Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton University Press.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Branstetter, L. (2001). Are knowledge spillovers international or intranational in scope? Microeconometric evidence from the U.S. and Japan. Journal of International Economics, 53(1), 53-79.
• Canbay, Ş., (2020a). The Effects of Research and Development (R&D) Expenditures on Exports in Turkey. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, (63), pp.131-140).
• Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. Springer.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
• Çetin, K. ve Gedik, H. (2017), İşletmelerde İnovasyona Etki Eden Faktörler: Karaman İli Örneği, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(13),160-172.
• Çolpan, A. M., Hakkak, M., & Lüthje, C. (2017). The role of financial resources in SMEs’ innovation capabilities: The case of Turkish textile industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 28(2), 245-267.
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236.
• Dechezleprêtre, A., Martin, R., & Mohnen, M. (2017). Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 44-58.
• Demir, M., & Ustun, E. (2018). İnovasyon için hükümet destek programlarının etkinliğini değerlendirmek: Türk firmalarının nitel bir çalışması. İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(2), 45-60.
• Eid, F. (2012). The impact of R&D on economic growth in emerging countries: Evidence from Lebanon. Journal of Business and Economics, 3(2), 144-155.
• Ela, M. (2019), Türkiye’de Ar-Ge Faaliyetlerine Sağlanan Vergisel Teşviklerin İnovasyona Etkisi, Conference, 5. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Kongresi (11-14 Temmuz 2019/Bandırma), 227-244.
• Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as 'quasi-firms': the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109-121.
• Gölgeci, I., & Kuşakçı, A. (2016). The effect of technology infrastructure on innovation performance: The Turkish case. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 356-365.
• Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. (2003). The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(3), 225-243. doi:10.1080/10438590290004555
• Hall, B. H., et al. (2010). Innovation and productivity: An update. NBER Working Paper No. 17178.
• Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression (3rd ed.). Wiley.
• Hottenrott, H., & Lopes-Bento, C. (2016). R&D financing and innovative productivity: Evidence from European firms. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(3), 487-500.
• Hud, M., & Hussinger, K. (2015). The impact of R&D subsidies during the crisis. Research Policy, 44(10), 1844–1855. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.respol.2015.06.003
• Jones, C. I., & Williams, J. C. (1998). Measuring the social return to R&D. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1119-1135.
• Kalay, F. ve Kızıldere, C. (2015), Türk İşletmelerinin İnovasyon Performansını Etkileyen Faktörler Üzerine Bir Araştırma, ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi (ODÜSOBİAD), 5(13), 36-63.
• Keller, W. (1997). Technology, international trade, and economic growth. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d'Économique, 30(2), 265-287.
• Kim, S., & Park, Y. (2018). The role of organizational innovation culture in enhancing innovation performance: A South Korean perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(3), 261-272.
• Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12.
• Mercan, G. ve Çetin, A.K. (2018), “Hibe Desteklerinin Firma İnovasyonuna Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Uluslararası Turizm, Ekonomi ve İşletme Bilimleri Dergisi (IJTEBS), 2(2), 65-71.
• Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1998). Paths of innovation: Technological change in 20th-century America. Cambridge University Press.
• Özdemir, A., & Ekinci, Y. (2018). The impact of firm age on R&D performance: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 120-135.
• Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71-S102.
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.
• Smith, C. D., & Johnson, E. F. (2010). Government support for R&D: A historical perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(4), 27-50.
• Wagner, J. (2008). Export participation and productivity: A firm-level analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Review of World Economics, 144(1), 169-180.
• Wu, J., & Wang, C. (2019). The effect of technological infrastructure on firm innovation: Evidence from Chinese firms. Management Decision, 57(5), 1111-1132.
• Yılmaz, A., & Ekinci, Y. (2018). The impact of firm size on innovation performance: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2), 87-98.