Impacts of overlapping public programs to promote innovative activities in Argentine firms

  • Eva Yamila da Silva Catela Universidade Federal Santa Catarina
  • Francis Petterini Universidade Federal Santa Catarina
  • Nestor Bercovich Universidade Federal Santa Catarina
Keywords: subsidies to innovation, FONTAR, SEPYME, Argentina
JEL Classification: L52, O38


The paper analyses the effect of the subsidies policy for innovation of two Argentine institutions, FONTAR and SEPYME, in a sample of small and medium-sized industrial companies, during the period 2010-2012. The effect of the superposition of FONTAR and SEPYME treatments is considered using the methodology of propensity score matching. Evidence of additionally is found when evaluating the individual impacts of the programs. However, no evidence of additionally or crowding out is found when the superimposed effect is considered. Finally, FONTAR’s actions seem to be more effective than those of SEPYME.


Acevedo, G.L. y H.W. 2010. Impact evaluation of SME programs in Latin America and Caribbean, Washington, World Bank.

Allman, K., J. Edler, L. Georghiou, B. Jones, I. Miles, O. Omidvar, R. Ramlogan y J. Rigby. 2011. Measuring wider framework conditions for successful innovation. A system’s review of UK and international innovation data, Index Report, Londres, Nesta.

Alvarez, R. 2004. Sources of export success in small-and medium-sized enterprises: The impact of public programs, International Business Review, 13(3): 383-400.

Avellar, A.P. 2009. Impacto das políticas de fomento à inovação no Brasil sobre o gasto em atividades inovativas e em atividades de P&D das empresas, Estudos Econômicos, 39(3): 629-649.

Avellar, A.P. y M. Botelho. 2016. Efeitos das políticas de inovação nos gastos com atividades inovativas das pequenas empresas brasileiras, Estudos Econômicos, 46(3): 609-642.

Barletta, F., V. Moori Koenig y G. Yoguel. 2014. Políticas e instrumentos para impulsar la innovación en las pymes argentinas, en M. Dini, S. Rovira y G. Stumpo (comps.) Una promesa y un suspirar: políticas de innovación para pymes en América Latina, DP núm. 632, Santiago de Chile, CEPAL, pp. 23-69.

Baruj, G., F. Brito y M. Pereira. 2016. Evaluación de programas públicos: principales metodologías y experiencias de evaluación de programas de apoyo a la ciencia, tecnología e innovación en América Latina, DT núm. 2, Argentina, CIECTI.

Becker, S.O. y A. Ichino. 2002. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores, The Stata Journal, 2(4): 358-377.

Binelli, C. y A. Maffioli. 2006. Evaluating the effectiveness of public support to private R&D: Evidence from Argentina, OVE DT núm. 1106, Washington, IDB.

Bonnet, J., S. Cieply y M. Dejardin. 2016. Credit rationing or overlending? An exploration into financing imperfection, Applied Economics, 48(57): 5563-5580.

Bronzini, R. y P. Piselli. 2016. The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation, Research Policy, 45(2): 442-457.

Cameron, A.C. y P.K. Trivedi. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press.

Castillo, V., A. Maffioli, S. Rojo y R. Stucchi. 2011. Innovation policy and employment: Evidence from an impact evaluation in Argentina, Technical Notes núm. IDB-TN-341, Washington, IDB.

Castro, L. y D. Jorrat. 2013. Evaluación del impacto de programas públicos de financiamiento sobre la innovación y la productividad: el caso de los servicios de software e informáticos de la Argentina, DT núm. 115, Argentina, CIPPEC.

Chudnovsky, D., A. López, M. Rossi y D. Ubfal. 2008. Money for science? The impact of research grants on academic output, Fiscal Studies 29(1): 75-87.

Chudnovsky, D., A. López, M. Rossi y D. Ubfal. 2006. Evaluating a program of public funding of private innovation activities: An econometric study of FONTAR in Argentina, OVE DT núm. 1606, Washington, IDB.

Cowling, M. y J. Siepel. 2013. Public intervention in UK small firm credit markets: Value-for- money or waste of scarce resources? Technovation 33(8-9): 265-275.

Crespi, G., A. Maffioli y M. Meléndez Arjona. 2011. Public support to innovation: The Colombian COLCIENCIAS’ experience, Technical Notes núm. IDB-TN-264, Washington, IDB.

Cuong, N.V. 2009. Impact evaluation of multiple overlapping programs under a conditional independence assumption, Research in Economics, 63(1): 27-54.

Czarnitzki, D., P. Hanel y J.M. Rosa. 2011. Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation: A microeconometric study on Canadian firms, Research Policy, 40(2): 217-229.

Foreman-Peck, J. 2013. Effectiveness and efficiency of SME innovation policy, Small Business Economics, 41(1): 55-70.

Frölich, M. 2004. Programme evaluation with multiple treatments, Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(2): 181-224.

González, X. y C. Pazó. 2008. Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending?, Research Policy, 37(3): 371-389.

Görg, H. y E. Strobl. 2007. The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D, Económica, 74(294): 215-234.

Green, J.R. y S. Scotchmer. 1995. On the division of profit in sequential innovation, The RAND Journal of Economics, 26(1): 20-33.

Hascic, I. y M. Migotto. 2015. Measuring environmental innovation using patent data, OECD Environment Working Papers núm. 89, OECD Publishing.

Hottenrott, H., C. Lopes-Bento y R. Veugelers. 2017. Direct and cross scheme effects in a research and development subsidy program, Research Policy, 46(6): 1118-1132.

Hussinger, K. 2008. R&D and subsidies at the firm level: An application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(6): 729-747.

Hyytinen, A. y M. Pajarinen. 2005. Financing of technology-intensive small businesses: Some evidence on the uniqueness of the ICT sector, Information Economics and Policy, 17(1): 115-132.

Imbens, G.W. y J. Wooldridge. 2009. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation, Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1): 5-86.

Katz, J. y N. Bercovich. 1993. National systems of innovation supporting technical advance in industry: the case of Argentina, en R.R. Nelson (comp.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, UK, Oxford University Press, pp. 451-475.

Khandker, S., B. Koolwal y H. Samad. 2009. Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices, Washington, The World Bank.

Kohon, F.M. et al. 2010. El impacto de las actividades de innovación financiadas por el FONTAR en la productividad de PYMES argentinas entre 2006 y 2008 (mimeo).

Linden, A., S. Uysal, A. Ryan y J. Adams. 2016. Estimating causal effects for multivalued treatments: a comparison of approaches, Statistics in Medicine, 35(4): 534-552.

López, A., A. Reynoso, M. Rossi. 2010. Impact evaluation of a program of public funding of private innovation activities: An econometric study of FONTAR in Argentina, OVE DT núm. 0310, Washington, IDB.

Lotti, F., F. Schivardi y S. Usai. 2005. Cross country differences in patent propensity: A firm-level investigation [with DISCUSSION], Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 64(4): 469-507.

Love, J.H. y S. Roper. 2015. SME innovation, exporting and growth: A review of existing evidence, International Small Business Journal, 33(1): 28-48.

Marino, M., P. Parrotta y S. Lhuillery. 2015. An overall evaluation of public R&D subsidy on private R&D expenditure in absence or in combination with R&D tax credit incentives, Post-Print hal-01508004, HAL (mimeo).

Mowery, D. y N. Rosenberg. 1979. The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies, Research Policy, 8(2): 102-153.

Nelson, R.R. 1991. Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2): 61-74.

Nelson, R.R. y S.G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press.

Pereira, M. y E. Tacsir. 2017. Generación de empleo e innovación en la Argentina: un abordaje micro-econométrico para el período 2010-2012, en CEPAL, La Encuesta Nacional de Dinámica de Empleo e Innovación (ENDEI) como herramienta de análisis: la innovación y el empleo en la industria manufacturera argentina, LC/TS. 2017/102, pp. 171-184.

Rosenbaum, P.R. y D. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika, 70(1): 41-55.

Rubin, D.B. 2005. Causal inference using potential outcomes. Design, modeling, decisions, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100 (469): 322-331.

Sanguinetti, P. 2005. Innovation and R&D expenditures in Argentina: Evidence from a firm level survey, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (mimeo).

Takalo, T. 2013. Rationales and instruments for public innovation policies, Bank of Finland Research, Discussion Paper, núm. (1).

Wooldridge, J.M. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, MIT Press.

How to Cite
da Silva CatelaE., PetteriniF., & BercovichN. (2020). Impacts of overlapping public programs to promote innovative activities in Argentine firms. Estudios Económicos, 35(1), 3-35.
  • Abstract viewed - 1897 times
  • PDF (Spanish) downloaded - 22 times
  • XML (Spanish) downloaded - 0 times