Search

Innovation and Investment Funding in the post-crisis period

PublicationBook chapter
Andreas Stephan, Dorothea Schäfer, Financing of Innovations, Företagandets villkor, Innovativa företag, SMEs, Tyskland

Abstract

This study examines the actual funding behavior of German innovative firms in the pre- and post-crisis period. Specifically, we investigate if and how the funding patterns and financial constraints of German small and medium enterprises (SME) changed during and since the financial crisis. The purpose of our analysis is to assess whether the aims of the European CMU action plan, funding innovation and investment activities, complements the behavior of German SMEs. We find fairly stable funding patterns over the years and there is no indication that financial constraints have become tighter in the post-crisis period. Consequently, realizing the CMU’s central goal of broadening the funding mix could leave the funding behavior of German SMEs largely unaffected.

Schäfer, D., & Stephan, A. (2017). Innovation and Investment Funding in the post-crisis period: have financing patterns and financial constraints of German firms changed?Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 86(1) (pp. 129-142). DOI:10.3790/vjh.86.1.129


Similar content

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – a critique of the entrepreneurial state
Article (with peer review)Publication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Working Paper no. 331: Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – A critique of the entrepreneurial state
Working paperPublication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C. & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy?
BookPublication
Sandström, C., Wennberg, K. & Karlson, N.
Publication year

2019

Published in
Abstract

How can innovation best be promoted? Based on a major interdisciplinary research program
with a special focus on Sweden, paired with international research, this book shows that targeted
interventions and firm subsidies do not have the intended effects but instead creates policy failures,
government waste and rent-seeking.

Instead, innovation policy should focus on supplying the right competencies and on improving the
institutions of the market economy and the general
conditions for enterprise.

Markets rather than bureaucrats are decisive for
innovation, industrial development and growth.

Show more

Postgiro: 382621-1

|

Bankgiro: 512-6578