Abstract
Firms fund research and development (R&D) to generate commercializable innovations and to increase their ability to understand and absorb knowledge from elsewhere. This dual role and opposed incentive structure of internal R&D create a significant question for both theory and R&D policy: Is internal R&D a complement or substitute for external R&D? We develop a model and novel technique for empirically estimating R&D substitution elasticities. We focus on bio-pharmaceutical and software industries in California and Massachusetts, where tax credit rates changed differently over time for the two types of R&D, creating a natural experiment. The effective tax prices for the two R&D types differ from type to type, firm to firm, state to state, and year to year. This allows us to examine changes in the composition of firms’ R&D budgets between in-house R&D and external basic research when the relative tax prices of each category of research change. We find evidence of a substitute relationship both for a sample comprising exclusively small firms as well as for a more general distribution of firm sizes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 24(1), 91–114.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press.
Berndt, E. R. (1991). The practice of econometrics: Classic and contemporary. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.
Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157–183.
Cohen, W. M., & Leventhal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52.
Commerce Clearing House (CCH) (2000–2003). http://www.tax.cch.com/primesrc/bin/highwire.dll
David, P., Hall, B., & Toole, P. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29, 497–529.
Diewert, W. E. (1971). An application of the Shephard duality theorem: A generalized Leontief production function. The Journal of Political Economy, 79(3), 481–507.
Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric Analysis (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.
Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity, R and D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. The American Economic Review, 76(1), 141–54.
Hall, B., & Wosinska, M. (1999). Effectiveness of the California R&D tax credit. Sacramento: California Council on Science and Technology.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hines, J. R. (1991). On the sensitivity of R&D to delicate tax changes: The behavior of U.S. multinationals in the 1980s. Working paper 3930. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
Hines, J. R. (1993). No place like home: Tax incentives and the location of R&D by American multinationals. Working paper 4574. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge.
Humphrey, D., & Moroney, J. (1975). Substitution among capital, labor, and natural resource products in American manufacturing. Journal of Political Economy, 83(1), 57–82.
Jaffe, A. B. (1996). Economic analysis of research spillovers: Implications for the advanced technology program. NIST grant/contract report 97–708. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg.
Kmenta, J. (1967). On estimation of the CES production function. International Economic Review, 8(2), 180–89.
KPMG International. 1997–1999. Corporate tax rate surveys. http://www.in.kpmg.com
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M., (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 417–77.
Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increases in manufacturing. The American Economic Review, 70(5), 863–73.
Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 67–94.
National Science Foundation (2000). Division of science resources studies. In Research and Development in Industry: 1998. NSF 01—305. Arlington, VA.
National Science Foundation (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003). Surveys of industrial research and development. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/industry/
Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.
Nicholls-Nixon, C. (1993). Absorptive capacity and technological sourcing: Implications for the responsiveness of established firms. Purdue University Dissertation. West Lafayette.
Paff, L. (2004). Does the alternate incremental credit affect firm R&D? Technovation, 24, 41–52.
Paff, L. (2002). The effectiveness of state-level R&D tax credits: An evaluation based on 10-K and Compustat data. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Dissertation.
Paff, L., & Watkins, T. A. (2006). What is the after-tax price of R&D? An inter-state comparison based on R&D tax credits, corporate tax rates, and income apportionment, using firm-level data. Eastern Economic Association annual conference. Philadelphia, February 24–26.
Pavitt, K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 761–79.
Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71–S102.
Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19(2), 165–74.
Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–32.
Santoro, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7), 1163–80.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (1999). EDGAR database. http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
Solow, R. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economic Statistics, 39(3), 312–20.
Steele, L. (1989). Managing technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tassey, G. (1997). The economics of R&D policy. Westport: Quorum Books.
Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–56.
Uzawa, H. (1964). Duality principles in the theory of cost and production. International Economic Review, 5(2), 216–20.
Van den Bosch, F. A. J., van Wijk, R. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2003). External knowledge, absorptive capacity, and firm performance. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Companion to organisational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.
Watkins, T. A. (1991). A technological communications costs model of R&D consortia as public policy. Research Policy, 20(2), 87–107.
Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seeming unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watkins, T.A., Paff, L.A. Absorptive capacity and R&D tax policy: Are in-house and external contract R&D substitutes or complements?. Small Bus Econ 33, 207–227 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9094-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9094-6