4.8 Article

The time-varying impacts of government incentives on innovation

期刊

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 132-144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.012

关键词

Innovation; Subsidy; Tax credit; Resource slack

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71673261, 71373254]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province in China [2016A030312005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper advances extant theoretical research through focusing on the time-varying effects of government fiscal incentives on the innovative performance of firms. Findings show that direct government subsidies favor firms in the short-term, but hinder them in their long-term innovation performance. Indirect tax credit, on the other hand, is favorable to a firm's short-term and long-term innovation performance. Importantly, combining resource-based theory and social capital theory, we suggest that two dimensions of resource endowment - financial and human slack - should be considered in evaluating the effectiveness of incentives. Specifically, our analysis utilizes a unique panel of data from Chinese high-tech companies based in Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park, allowing for our analysis of interior firm variation over time. The study shows solid empirical support for the effects of government incentives over time and offers the interesting result that financial slack positively moderates the relationships between government incentives and firms' innovation performance, while human slack has the opposite moderating role. As such, our paper contributes to the present debate on government incentives in generating innovation, not only by investigating how effects of specific fiscal instruments on innovation performance vary with time, but also by attempting to incorporate firms' resource endowment conditions as contingent factors. Future research directions, implications for innovation research, and policy implications are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据