The Selection of Government Subsidy Strategy under theIndustry-university-research Cooperative Innovation Mode

doi:10.12005/orms.2018.0103

Abstract

Abstract: The subsidy strategy is a common policy that governments encourage enterprise innovation. Concerning the inherent absorptive capacity and external government subsidy strategy, this paper, by establishing a three-stage game model, uses the analytical solution and simulation analysis method to explore the influence of absorptive capacity and innovation distribution input coefficient on the government subsidy strategy, based on industry-university-research cooperative innovation. The results show that: no matter what kind of government subsidy, it can motivate enterprises to enlarge innovation investment scale. The enterprise absorptive capacity, R&D input, output and social welfare show a positive correlation, but absorptive capacity’s impact on profits and government subsidies are limited to subsidies mode and the enterprise innovation distribution coefficient. Under the innovative products subsidy, the influence of innovation difficulty coefficient on government subsidy is not obvious, in contrast, innovative products subsidy is superior to innovation input subsidies.

Key words: innovative subsidy, industry-university-research, distribution proportion, absorptive capacity

摘要： 创新补贴策略是政府鼓励企业创新的一种常见政策,考虑到企业内在的吸收能力与外部不同政府补贴策略方式的存在,本文以产学研合作创新方式为基础,通过建立三阶段博弈模型,利用模型解析与仿真分析讨论吸收能力与创新投入分配比例系数对政府补贴策略选择的影响。研究结果表明:无论政府采取哪一种补贴方式,均可以有效激励企业加大创新投入规模,并且企业的吸收能力与R&D投入、产量及社会福利均呈正相关关系;但是,吸收能力对利润及政府补贴的影响受限于补贴方式和企业的创新投入分配比例系数;此外,在创新产品补贴下,创新难度系数对政府补贴额度的影响并不明显,而创新产品补贴总体优于创新投入补贴。

关键词: 创新补贴, 产学研, 分配比例, 吸收能力

CLC Number:

F276.42

MA Yong-hong, NA Qi. The Selection of Government Subsidy Strategy under theIndustry-university-research Cooperative Innovation Mode[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2018, 27(4): 191-199.

马永红, 那琪. 产学研合作创新方式下政府补贴策略选择[J]. 运筹与管理, 2018, 27(4): 191-199.

References

[1]Frambach R T, Schillewaert N. Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2002, 55(2): 163-176.
[2]Chesbrough H W. The era of open innovation[J]. Mit Sloan Management Review, 2003, 44(3): 35-41.
[3]Mowery D C. Collaborative R&D: how effective is it?[J]. Issues in Science & Technology, 1998, 15(1): 37-44.
[4]Freitas I M B, Marques R A, Silva E M D P E. University-industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(2): 443-453.
[5]Boardman P C. Government centrality to university-industry interactions: university research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers[J]. Research Policy, 2009, 38(10): 1505-1516.
[6]Jeroen Hinloopen. Subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D: an equivalence result?[J]. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 2000, 9(4): 317-329.
[7]Herzog P. Open and closed innovation: different innovation cultures for different strategies[J]. International Journal of Technology Management, 2010, 52(3-4): 322-343.
[8]Spencer B J, Brander J A. Brander. international R&D rivalry and industrial strategy[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1983, 50(4): 707-722.
[9]Hinloopen J. Subsidizing R&D cooperatives[J]. De Economist, 2001, 149(3): 313-345.
[10]Feldman M P, Kelley M R. The ex ante, assessment of knowledge spillovers: government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior[J]. Research Policy, 2006, 35(10): 1509-1521.
[11]Gil-Moltó, Maria José, Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna, Zikos V.R&D subsidies, spillovers, and privatization in mixed markets[J]. Discussion Papers in Economics, 2010, 78(1): 233-255.
[12]盛光华,张志远.补贴方式对创新模式选择影响的演化博弈研究[J].管理科学学报,2015,18(9):34-45.
[13]生延超.创新投入补贴还是创新产品补贴:技术联盟的政府策略选择[J].中国管理科学,2008,16(6):184-192.
[14]林承亮,许为民.技术外部性下创新补贴最优方式研究[J].科学学研究,2012,30(5):766-772.
[15]Bercovitz J, Feldman M. Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2006, 31(1): 175-188.
[16]Bernstein J I, Nadiri M I. Interindustry R&D spillovers, rates of return, and production in high-tech industries[J]. American Economic Review, 1988, 78(2): 429-434.
[17]Goel R K. Spillovers, rivalry and R&D investment[J]. Southern Economic Journal, 1995, 62(1): 71-76.
[18]Maietta O W. Determinants of university-firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: a perspective from a low-tech industry[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(7): 1341-1359.
[19]Santoro M D, Bierly P E. Facilitators of knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: a knowledge-based perspective[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2006, 53(4): 495-507.
[20]Al-Tabbaa O, Ankrah S. Social capital to facilitate ‘engineered’ university-industry collaboration for technology transfer: a dynamic perspective[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2016, 104: 1-15.
[21]Canhoto A I, Quinton S, Jackson P, et al. The co-production of value in digital, university-industry R&D collaborative projects[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2016, 56: 86-96.
[22]D’Aspremont C, Jacquemin A. Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers[J]. American Economic Review, 1988, 78(78): 1133-1137.
[23]Amir R. Modelling imperfectly appropriable R&D via spillovers[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2000, 18(7): 1013-1032.
[24]Cellini, Roberto, Lambertini, et al. Dynamic R&D with spillovers: competition vs cooperation[J]. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 2003, 33(3): 568-582.
[25]Dawid H, Kopel M, Kort P M. R&D competition versus R&D cooperation in oligopolistic markets with evolving structure[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2013, 31(5): 527-537.