|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Leo Sveikauskas (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) |
| Abstract: | This paper reviews the literature on R&D to provide guidelines for recent efforts to include R&D in the national income accounts. The main conclusions are: 1. Measures of R&D as an asset held by a particular owner must be complemented by estimates of the spillover effect of R&D in order to obtain a reliable measure of the overall effect of R&D on productivity growth. 2. If research financed by the government and research financed by business are both counted as investment, some double counting occurs and growth accounting analysis overstates the role of research relative to other factors. 3. The overall rate of return to R&D is very large, perhaps 25 percent as a private return and a total of 65 percent for social returns. However, these returns apply only to privately financed R&D in industry. Returns to many forms of publicly financed R&D are near zero. 4. Firm R&D should be allocated to the different industries in which a firm produces, rather than all credited to the firm’s main industry. An allocation procedure is proposed. 5. Much further work needs to be carried out to understand how R&D conducted in the richest countries is transmitted to developing countries. Detailed microeconomic data on firms or establishments in developing nations will be necessary to understand the channels of technology transfer more fully. |
| Keywords: | R&D Stocks, R&D Spillovers, R&D and Productivity Growth |
| JEL: | O30 O40 |
| Date: | 2007–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bls:wpaper:ec070070&r=ppm |
| By: | Solange Corder |
| Abstract: | This paper presents the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Brazil Countries, in the 90?s. There´s a general government? concern to stimulate research, development and innovation in entrepreneurial sector, beyond to incentive the cooperation. Brazil, inspirate in OECD? policies create several instruments diversifying the available mechanisms. It is unlikely to implement the Industrial Policy based on the old patterns, due to the new international commercial rules. The government, then, had searched new forms to incentive the economic development, with emphasis in innovation policies. Innovation is here understood as a broad concept including not only research and development but all the necessary activities to bring a new product or a new service to the market. This means that financing mechanisms have to attend to specific and different demands related to the innovation process. Each step and each activity will require a specific instrument. Moreover, it is necessary to assess the effectiveness of these instruments in terms of their actual capacity to foster innovation among firms in the context of the national system of innovation. |
| Date: | 2006–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipe:ipetds:1244&r=ppm |
| By: | Nuria Rodriguez-Planas (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, FEDEA and IZA) |
| Abstract: | Recent empirical evidence has found that employment services and small-business assistance programmes are often successful at getting the unemployed back to work. One important concern of policy makers is to decide which of these two programmes is more effective and for whom. Using unusually rich (for transition economies) survey data and matching methods, I evaluate the relative effectiveness of these two programmes in Romania. While I find that employment services (ES) are, on average, more successful than a small-business assistance programme (SBA), estimation of heterogeneity effects reveals that, compared to non-participation, ES are effective for workers with little access to informal search channels, and SBA works for less-qualified workers and those living in rural areas. When comparing ES to SBA, I find that ES tend to be more efficient than SBA for workers without a high-school degree, and that the opposite holds for the more educated workers. |
| Keywords: | active labour market programmes, evaluation, propensity score matching, transition economies, treatment effects |
| JEL: | J21 J23 J31 J64 J65 J68 |
| Date: | 2007–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp3051&r=ppm |