Factors explaining firms’ receipt of public funding for innovation: the case of Chilean small and medium-sized enterprises


  • Cristian Mardones Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Concepción
  • Annabella Zapata Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Concepción




Pseudo-panel, Probit, Public financing


This study uses innovation surveys conducted in Chile to evaluate the factors that may explain public financing for innovative activities in small and medium-sized firms (SMEs). The analysis is important because small and medium sized firms are the focus of the existing public programs. The estimated results with binary choice models are contrasted with cross-sectional and pseudo-panel data, observing that firms with some types of expenditures on innovative activities in previous year have more probability to obtain public financing.


Download data is not yet available.


Afcha S. (2012). Analyzing the interaction between R&D subsidies and firm’s innovation strategy. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7, 57-70. doi: 10.4067/s0718-27242012000300006

Álvarez, R., Bravo-Ortega, C., & Navarro, L. (2010). Innovation, R&D Investment and Productivity in Chile. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1818741

Álvarez, R., Bravo-Ortega, C. & Zahler, A. (2015). Innovation and Productivity in Services: Evidence from Chile. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(3), 593-611. doi:10.1080/1540496X.2015.1026696

Barge-Gil, A., & López, A. (2014). R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development. Research Policy, 43(9), 1634-1648. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.017

Benavente J. (2005). Investigación y desarrollo, innovación y productividad: un análisis econométrico a nivel de la firma. Estudios de Economía, 32, 39-67

Bravo-Ortega, C., Benavente, J. M. & González, A. 2014. Innovation, exports and productivity: learning and self-selection in Chile. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 50 (1), 68-95. doi:10.2753/REE1540-496X5001S105

Cabaleiro, G. & Salce, F. (2018). The State of Markets for Technology in Chile. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 13(1), 38-47. doi:10.4067/S0718-27242018000100038

Canales, M., & Álvarez, R. (2017). Impacto de los obstáculos al conocimiento en la innovación de las empresas chilenas. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 12(3), 78-85. doi:10.4067/S0718-27

Cantner, U. & Kösters, S. (2012). Picking the winner? Empirical evidence on the targeting of R&D subsidies to start-ups. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 921-936. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9340-9

Cerulli, G., & Potí, B. (2012). Evaluating the robustness of the effect of public subsidies on firms' R&D: an application to Italy. Journal of Applied Economics, 15(2), 287-320. doi:10.1016/S1514-0326(12)60013-0

Clausen, T. (2009). Do subsidies have positive impacts on R&D and innovation activities at the firm level? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 20(4), 239-253. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2009.09.004

Crespi, G., Figal, L., Maffioli, A. & Meléndez, M. (2015). Long-Term Productivity Effects of Public Support to Innovation in Colombia. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(1), 1-17. doi:10.1080/1540496X.2015.998080

Crespi, G., Tacsir, E., & Vargas, F. (2016). Innovation Dynamics and Productivity: Evidence for Latin America. Firm Innovation and Productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean, 37–71. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-58151-1_2

Deaton, A. (1985). Panel Data from Time Series of Cross Sections. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1-2), 109-126. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(85)90134-4242017000300008

Duch-Brown, N., Garcia-Quevedo, J., & Montolio, D. (2011). The Link between Public Support and Private R&D Effort: What is the Optimal Subsidy? SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1864192

González, X., & Pazó, C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, 37(3), 371-389. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009

Huergo E., Trenado M., & Ubierna A. (2016). The impact of public support on firm propensity to engage in R&D: Spanish experience. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 113(B), 206–219. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.011

Moffitt, R. (1993). Identification and Estimation of Dynamic Models with a Time Series of Repeated Cross-Sections. Journal of Econometrics, 59, 99-123. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(93)90041-3

Moya, P. & Molina, F. (2017). Innovación y Emprendimiento en el Discurso Político Chileno. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 12(1), 93-99. doi:10.4067/S0718-27242017000100010

Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, firm size and innovation: an empirical analysis. Technovation, 25(1), 25-32. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00152-4

Verbeek M., & Vella F. (2005). Estimating dynamic models from repeated cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics, 127, 83-102. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.06.004

Verbeek M. (2008). Pseudo-Panels and repeated Cross-Sections. In The Econometrics of Panel Data. Springer, third edition, pp. 369-383. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75892-1_11




How to Cite

Mardones, C., & Zapata, A. (2018). Factors explaining firms’ receipt of public funding for innovation: the case of Chilean small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 13(2), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242018000200012



Research Articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.