Direct Public Support of R&D and Innovation in Czech Firms

Unintended Consequences and Possible Peltzman Effect


  • Marek Vokoun Vysoká škola CEVRO, Department of Economics



This paper investigates the complex relationship between direct public support for innovation projects, being continuous innovator, and turnover growth, with a particular emphasis on the possibility of a Peltzman effect. The quantitative analysis investigates whether companies incentivized by direct subsidies prefer safer projects over riskier, groundbreaking innovations, using the 2014 Czech innovation dataset and an extensive literature review. The findings show a link between firms that receive public funding and those that engage in continuous or occasional innovation activities. However, the impact on turnover growth is not positive, implying that, on average, public subsidies do not significantly contribute to turnover growth. Concerns are raised in the study about potential market distortions, inefficient resource allocation, and the dynamics of collaboration among large firms in publicly funded projects. While acknowledging the models' exploratory nature, the study emphasizes the importance of ongoing scrutiny and refinement of innovation policies to ensure their effectiveness in promoting genuine innovation while mitigating unintended consequences.


Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2005). Growth with Quality-Improving Innovations: An Integrated Framework. In S. N. Durlauf & P. Aghion (Ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth (s. 67-110). Elsevier.

Antonioli, D., & Montresor, S. (2021). Innovation persistence in times of crisis: An analysis of Italian firms. Small Business Economics, 56(4), 1739-1764.

Baday Yıldız, E., Dabić, M., Stojčić, N., Dindaroğlu, Y., & Temel, S. (2021). Scrutinizing innovation performance of family firms in efficiency-driven environment. Journal of Business Research, 129, 260-270.

Baláž, V., & Jeck, T. (2022). Public Support to Research and Innovation: Do European Resources Boost Innovation Outputs? Journal of East European Management Studies, 27(1), 106-129.

Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J., & Williams, H. (2019). A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(3), 163-184.

Boettke, P. J., & Coyne, C. J. (2003). ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT: CAUSE OR CONSEQUENCE? In R. Koppl, J. Birner, & P. Kurrild-Klitgaard (Ed.), Austrian Economics and Entrepreneurial Studies (Roč. 6, s. 67-87). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Bronzini, R., & Iachini, E. (2014). Are Incentives for R&D Effective? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Approach. AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL-ECONOMIC POLICY, 6(4), 100-134.

Cano-Kollmann, M., Hamilton, R. D., III, & Mudambi, R. (2017). Public support for innovation and the openness of firms' innovation activities. INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE, 26(3), 421-442.

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not) (Working Paper 7552). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fiet, J. O., Piskounov, A., & Patel, P. C. (2005). Still Searching (Systematically) for Entrepreneurial Discoveries. Small Business Economics, 25(5), 489-504.

Grossman, G. M. (1993). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. MIT Press.

Hwang, W.-S., & Oh, S. (2023). The effectiveness of public R&D subsidy on SMEs' innovation capability and catch-up in the Korean manufacturing industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 35(10), 1369-1384.

Jugend, D., Fiorini, P. D. C., Armellini, F., & Ferrari, A. G. (2020). Public support for innovation: A systematic review of the literature and implications for open innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 119985.

Kim, A., Choi, S. O., & Lee, S. (2020). Public subsidies and firm innovation, a mediating role of external collaboration: The relation between diverse natures of innovation activities. International Journal of Technology Management, 84(1/2), 86.

OECD & Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th Edition). OECD Publishing.

Peltzman, S. (1973). An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments. Journal of Political Economy, 81(5), 1049-1091.

Perilla Jimenez, J. R. (2019). Mainstream and evolutionary views of technology, economic growth and catching up. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29(3), 823-852.

Pisár, P., Ďurčeková, I., & Stachová, M. (2020). The contribution of innovation actors into business R&D funding - does the substitution effect of public support work in the EU? E+M Ekonomie a Management, 23(1), 121-134.

Ren, Y., Zhao, W., Zhang, L., & Hou, T. (2023). R&D subsidy and corporate innovation: An integrated view of resource allocation and resource utilisation. Industry and Innovation, 1-26.

Vokoun, M. (2017). Characteristics of the innovation activities of firms in Europe: A critical review of international differences. Review of Economic Perspectives, 17(3), 239-262.

Vokoun, M., & Dvouletý, O. (2022). International, national and sectoral determinants of innovation: Evolutionary perspective from the Czech, German, Hungarian and Slovak community innovation survey data. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 0(0), 1-41.



Dec. 30, 2023




How to Cite

Vokoun, M. (2023). Direct Public Support of R&D and Innovation in Czech Firms: Unintended Consequences and Possible Peltzman Effect . New Perspectives on Political Economy, 19(1-2), 10-25.