公共研发政策、吸收能力与企业的R&D活动
|
摘要
现代经济增长理论表明，如果社会最优的技术创新水平能够较好地通过市场机制实现的话，人类社会将可实现快速的经济增长。大量地理论分析和经验研究却证实了市场经济体制很难引导私人企业实现社会所期望的技术创新水平，社会最优水平的技术创新活动是无法通过市场机制自我实现的。因此必须设计出若干政策措施来修正市场机制对R&D活动的刺激失灵，以实现社会最优的技术创新水平。
在市场机制很难引导企业实现社会所期望的最优技术创新水平的情况下，主流经济学者主要从两个方面来分析如何提高企业技术创新水平：一是通过增强吸收能力提高企业技术创新的效率；二是通过有效的公共研发政策激励企业从事更多的技术创新活动。本文将从这两方面对已有的技术创新的文献进行回顾，在分析吸收能力和公共研发政策最大化R&D活动方面所具有的正面和负面作用的基础上，为吸收能力与公共研发政策建立一个统一的理论模型。传统的公共研发政策是对企业R&D活动给予补贴或税收优惠，这种激励方式是产生挤出或替代效应根本原因。最有效的公共研发政策应该是对影响吸收能力的因子给予补贴或者税收优惠，这样既刺激企业提高自身的吸收能力，而吸收能力的增强不仅导致更低的产出成本，而且还降低了有效的溢出水平。事实上，由于补贴力度不仅与R&D活动的溢出水平正相关，更与技术吸收能力正相关，与补贴溢出水平带来的损失相比，对吸收能力进行补贴更能提高补贴措施的激励功效，这种措施减少公共研发政策支持所产生的挤出或替代效应。因为挤出或替代效应之所以产生，其主要原因在于企业更倾向于从事税收更优惠的R&D活动，而大量公共研发政策支持的投入必定会导致R&D活动的投入成本增加，R&D活动的投入成本增加又必然导致R&D活动的收益率下降，最终抑制企业从事R&D的热情。如果对影响吸收能力的因子给予补贴或税收优惠的话，企业的吸收能力会得到增强，而吸收能力的增强可以减少公共研发政策支持所产生的挤出或替代效应。
在理论上揭示吸收能力与公共研发政策之间的互补关系的同时，本文还要从经验上证明这种相互促进的关系也是存在的，具体的思路是在选择一些指标(如专利水平、现有R&D存量、人力资本、经济开放度、FDI流入量等等)衡量吸收能力的基础上，为吸收能力与公共研发政策建立计量模型，不仅考察吸收能力在促进R&D活动方面的功效，还考察它们在促进R&D活动方面的共同作用，最终从经验上证明了公共研发政策与吸收能力在促进R&D活动方面可以相互补充，形成提高企业技术创新能力的合力。作为发展中国家，我国不可能无限度地加大对R&D活动的公共研发政策支持力度，而且企业由于自身的赢利能力所限，R&D活动的投入也是有限的，这在一定程度表明我国在一段相当长的时间内需要引进国外的先进技术，通过增强吸收能力来强化企业技术创新能力，但这又在一定程度上形成了对国外技术的依赖。本文在综合这两种观点的基础上寻找增强吸收能力与公共研发政策支持之间的互补作用，最大限度地发挥它们对技术创新的促进作用，从而形成一种新的技术创新路径：公共研发政策有必要从对R&D活动的投入进行补贴转变为对R&D活动的吸收能力进行补贴，即公共研发政策应尽可能地偏向吸收能力较强的产业，使政策“有所为，有所不为”，更好地发挥公共研发政策支持R&D活动的功效，以便快速提高我国企业的技术创新能力。
The modern theories of economic growth effectively explaining for economic growth in real world indicates, if the level of social optimal innovation can be well realized by the market system, the people will realize the rapid economic growth, while a large of theoretical analysis and empirical research proves that market system is hard to lead the private firms fulfill the socially expecting innovation activities, the level of social optimal innovation activities can not be self-realized by the market system. To realize the social optimal innovation activities, we should design some policies to modify the stimulating failure of market system for research and development activities.
On the condition of much theoretic and empirical analysis all demonstrate the market system can hardly lead the firms realize the socially expecting innovation level, the popular economists mainly analyze how to improve the firm's innovation from two ways: one the hand it is improving the absorptive capability to increase the firms innovation, another hand it is the effective public research policies to encourage the firm do much more innovation activities. This paper will review the old research paper about innovation on the two ways, and we construct an integrated model for absorptive capability and public research policies on the base of analyzing the positive and negative effect of absorptive capability and public research policies on maximizing the innovation activities, the traditional public research policies are to carry some subsidy or tax preference on the firms' innovation activities, this kind of encouraging way is the basic reason of resulting in crowding or displacing effect, the most effective public research policies should carry some subsidy or tax preference on the factors which have some effect on the absorptive capability, this measure can stimulate the firms to improve own absorptive capability, and the improved absorptive capability will not only result in more lower output cost, but also bring more lower the effective spillovers. In fact, on the reasons of the subsidy strengthen is not positive relationship with the effective spillovers, but positive relationship with absorptive capability, the policy to subside absorptive capability will more improve the encouraging effect of the subsidy measure than to subside the spillover for its damage, this measure can ease the crowding or displacing effect resulted by the public research policies, the main reason of the crowding or displacing effect is that the firm will do more R&D activities for tax preference, while large government expenditure increase the cost of R&D activities and decrease the return of it, which will restrain the firm from engaging in R&D activities. If subsiding or giving tax preference for the absorptive capability, the absorptive capability will be strengthened, then the strength of the absorptive capability will reduce the crowding or displacing effect resulted by public research policies.
Revealing the complement between the absorptive capability and public research policies on the theory, this paper will demonstrate empirically this complement is existed, the specific thought is constructing econometric model for the absorptive capability and public research policies on the base of choosing some factors (such as patent level, R&D expenditure, human resources, economic openness, FDI inflow) to measure the absorptive capability, which not only exams the effect of the absorptive capability on promoting R&D activities, but also exams their whole effect on R&D activities, and end up empirically demonstrating there is complement between absorptive capability and public research policies on encouraging R&D activities, and be the common force on improving the firms' innovation. As a developing country, China cannot unlimitedly increase the strength of public research policies on R&D activities, meanwhile because of own return is limited, the R&D expenditure of the firm is also limited, which on some degree shows China will introduce foreign advanced technology during some period to enhance absorptive capability for strengthening the firms innovation, while will be dependent on foreign technology on some degree. On the base of synthesizing two kinds of idea, this paper search to strengthen the complement between absorptive capability and public research policies, maximally perform their effect on improving innovation, and then form a new innovating road: public research policies should change to subside the absorptive capability from the R&D activities, which is public research policies should be bias on the strong absorptive capability of industries, make the policies must be done and must not be done, best perform the encouraging effect of public research policies on R&D activities, so as to fast improve the firms innovation of China.
在市场机制很难引导企业实现社会所期望的最优技术创新水平的情况下，主流经济学者主要从两个方面来分析如何提高企业技术创新水平：一是通过增强吸收能力提高企业技术创新的效率；二是通过有效的公共研发政策激励企业从事更多的技术创新活动。本文将从这两方面对已有的技术创新的文献进行回顾，在分析吸收能力和公共研发政策最大化R&D活动方面所具有的正面和负面作用的基础上，为吸收能力与公共研发政策建立一个统一的理论模型。传统的公共研发政策是对企业R&D活动给予补贴或税收优惠，这种激励方式是产生挤出或替代效应根本原因。最有效的公共研发政策应该是对影响吸收能力的因子给予补贴或者税收优惠，这样既刺激企业提高自身的吸收能力，而吸收能力的增强不仅导致更低的产出成本，而且还降低了有效的溢出水平。事实上，由于补贴力度不仅与R&D活动的溢出水平正相关，更与技术吸收能力正相关，与补贴溢出水平带来的损失相比，对吸收能力进行补贴更能提高补贴措施的激励功效，这种措施减少公共研发政策支持所产生的挤出或替代效应。因为挤出或替代效应之所以产生，其主要原因在于企业更倾向于从事税收更优惠的R&D活动，而大量公共研发政策支持的投入必定会导致R&D活动的投入成本增加，R&D活动的投入成本增加又必然导致R&D活动的收益率下降，最终抑制企业从事R&D的热情。如果对影响吸收能力的因子给予补贴或税收优惠的话，企业的吸收能力会得到增强，而吸收能力的增强可以减少公共研发政策支持所产生的挤出或替代效应。
在理论上揭示吸收能力与公共研发政策之间的互补关系的同时，本文还要从经验上证明这种相互促进的关系也是存在的，具体的思路是在选择一些指标(如专利水平、现有R&D存量、人力资本、经济开放度、FDI流入量等等)衡量吸收能力的基础上，为吸收能力与公共研发政策建立计量模型，不仅考察吸收能力在促进R&D活动方面的功效，还考察它们在促进R&D活动方面的共同作用，最终从经验上证明了公共研发政策与吸收能力在促进R&D活动方面可以相互补充，形成提高企业技术创新能力的合力。作为发展中国家，我国不可能无限度地加大对R&D活动的公共研发政策支持力度，而且企业由于自身的赢利能力所限，R&D活动的投入也是有限的，这在一定程度表明我国在一段相当长的时间内需要引进国外的先进技术，通过增强吸收能力来强化企业技术创新能力，但这又在一定程度上形成了对国外技术的依赖。本文在综合这两种观点的基础上寻找增强吸收能力与公共研发政策支持之间的互补作用，最大限度地发挥它们对技术创新的促进作用，从而形成一种新的技术创新路径：公共研发政策有必要从对R&D活动的投入进行补贴转变为对R&D活动的吸收能力进行补贴，即公共研发政策应尽可能地偏向吸收能力较强的产业，使政策“有所为，有所不为”，更好地发挥公共研发政策支持R&D活动的功效，以便快速提高我国企业的技术创新能力。
The modern theories of economic growth effectively explaining for economic growth in real world indicates, if the level of social optimal innovation can be well realized by the market system, the people will realize the rapid economic growth, while a large of theoretical analysis and empirical research proves that market system is hard to lead the private firms fulfill the socially expecting innovation activities, the level of social optimal innovation activities can not be self-realized by the market system. To realize the social optimal innovation activities, we should design some policies to modify the stimulating failure of market system for research and development activities.
On the condition of much theoretic and empirical analysis all demonstrate the market system can hardly lead the firms realize the socially expecting innovation level, the popular economists mainly analyze how to improve the firm's innovation from two ways: one the hand it is improving the absorptive capability to increase the firms innovation, another hand it is the effective public research policies to encourage the firm do much more innovation activities. This paper will review the old research paper about innovation on the two ways, and we construct an integrated model for absorptive capability and public research policies on the base of analyzing the positive and negative effect of absorptive capability and public research policies on maximizing the innovation activities, the traditional public research policies are to carry some subsidy or tax preference on the firms' innovation activities, this kind of encouraging way is the basic reason of resulting in crowding or displacing effect, the most effective public research policies should carry some subsidy or tax preference on the factors which have some effect on the absorptive capability, this measure can stimulate the firms to improve own absorptive capability, and the improved absorptive capability will not only result in more lower output cost, but also bring more lower the effective spillovers. In fact, on the reasons of the subsidy strengthen is not positive relationship with the effective spillovers, but positive relationship with absorptive capability, the policy to subside absorptive capability will more improve the encouraging effect of the subsidy measure than to subside the spillover for its damage, this measure can ease the crowding or displacing effect resulted by the public research policies, the main reason of the crowding or displacing effect is that the firm will do more R&D activities for tax preference, while large government expenditure increase the cost of R&D activities and decrease the return of it, which will restrain the firm from engaging in R&D activities. If subsiding or giving tax preference for the absorptive capability, the absorptive capability will be strengthened, then the strength of the absorptive capability will reduce the crowding or displacing effect resulted by public research policies.
Revealing the complement between the absorptive capability and public research policies on the theory, this paper will demonstrate empirically this complement is existed, the specific thought is constructing econometric model for the absorptive capability and public research policies on the base of choosing some factors (such as patent level, R&D expenditure, human resources, economic openness, FDI inflow) to measure the absorptive capability, which not only exams the effect of the absorptive capability on promoting R&D activities, but also exams their whole effect on R&D activities, and end up empirically demonstrating there is complement between absorptive capability and public research policies on encouraging R&D activities, and be the common force on improving the firms' innovation. As a developing country, China cannot unlimitedly increase the strength of public research policies on R&D activities, meanwhile because of own return is limited, the R&D expenditure of the firm is also limited, which on some degree shows China will introduce foreign advanced technology during some period to enhance absorptive capability for strengthening the firms innovation, while will be dependent on foreign technology on some degree. On the base of synthesizing two kinds of idea, this paper search to strengthen the complement between absorptive capability and public research policies, maximally perform their effect on improving innovation, and then form a new innovating road: public research policies should change to subside the absorptive capability from the R&D activities, which is public research policies should be bias on the strong absorptive capability of industries, make the policies must be done and must not be done, best perform the encouraging effect of public research policies on R&D activities, so as to fast improve the firms innovation of China.
引文
[1] Arrow, K. Economic Welfare and Allocations of Resources for Invention. National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1962.
[2] Bernstein, J. The Effect of Direct and Indirect Tax Incentives on Canadian Industrial R&D Expenditures. Canadian Public Policy-Analyse de Politiques, 1986,(12): 438-448.
[3] Bernstein, J. The Canadian Corporate Tax Structure and the Effects on the Manufacturing Production, Costs and Efficiency. Mimeo, Carleton University, 1988.
[4] Bernstein, J. and Nadiri, M.I. Interindustry R&D Spillovers, Rate of Return, and Production in High Technology Industries. American Economic Review, 1988, (78):429-34.
[5] Bernstein, Jeffrey. The Structure of Canadian Interindustry R&D Spillovers and the Rates of Return to R&D. Journal of Industrial Economics, 1989, (21): 324-4.
[6] Blomstrom, M. and F. Sjoholm, Technology Transfer and Spillovers: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter.European Economic Review, 1999, (43):915-923.
[7] Bloom, N., R. Griffith. and J. van Reenen. Do R&D Credits Work? Evidence from a Panel of Countries 1979-97. Journal of Public Economics, 2002, (85): 1-31
[8] Borensztein. E, Gregorio J.D and Lee J-W. How does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth? Journal of International Economics, 1998, (45) 115-135.
[9] Busom, Isabel. An Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of R&D Subsidies, Working Paper, 1999, No. B99-05, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
[10] Cantwell, J., Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1989.
[11] Carl Davidson and Paul Segerstrom, R&D Subsidies and Economic Growth, Working paper, 1997.
[12] Carmichael, Jeffrey. The effects of mission-oriented public R&D spending on private industry. Journal of Finance, 1981, (36): 617-627.
[13] Cassiman, Bruno and Reinhilde Veugelers. R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence. American Economic Review, 2002, (Vol92): 1169-1183.
[14] Cassiman, Bruno. In Search of Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition. Working paper, 2005.
[15] Caves, R.E., Multinational Firms, Competition and Productivity in Host-Country Markets.Economica, 1974,(41): 176-193.
[16] Cohen, W.M., and D. Levinthal. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 1989, (99): 569-596.
[17] Cohen, W.M., and D. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, (35): 128-152.
[18] Colombo, M. G. and Gerrone, P. Technological Cooperative Agreements and Firm's R&D Intensity. A Note on Causality Relations. Research Policy, 1996, (25):923-932
[19] d'Aspremont, C. and A. Jacquemin. Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers. American Economic Review, 1988, (78): 1133-1137
[20] Damiano, B.S. The Economics of Cooperation and Competition in Research and Development: A Survey. Working paper, 2003.
[21] David, P., Hall, B. and Toole, A. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private? A Review of the Econometric Evidence. Research Policy, 2000: 497-529.
[22] Dixit, A., and J.Stiglitz. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 1977, (67): 297-308.
[23] Dominique Guellec and Bruno Van Pottelsberghe. The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D, Economics of Innovation and New Technology,Working paper, 2003: 225-243.
[24] Emmanuel, Duguet. Are R&D Subsidies a Substitute or a Complement to Privately Funded R&D? Evidence from France Using Propensity Score Methods for Non-experimental Data. Working Paper, 2003.
[25] G.M.Grossman and E.Helpman. Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994, (8): 23-44.
[26] Globerman, S. Foreign Direct Investment and Spillover Efficiency Benefits in Canadian Manufacturing Industries. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1979, (12): 42-56.
[27] Goolsbee, Austan. Does government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers? National Bureau Of Economic Research. Working Paper, 1998, No. 6532.
[28] Griliches, Zvi, and Haim Regev. R&D, Government Support and Firm Productivity in Israeli Industry. In Spivack, R. N. (ed.) Papers and Proceedings of the Advanced Technology Program's International Conference on the Economic Evaluation of Technological Change, NIST Special Publication. 2001: 59-67.
[29] Grunfeld, Leo A. Meet Me Halfway but don't Rush Absorptive capacity and strategic R&D investment. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003, (vol.21): 1091-1109.
[30] Guellec, Dominique and Bruno Van Pottelsbrghe.The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D .STI Working Papers, OECD, June 2000.
[31] Gupta and Govindarajan.. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, (21): 473-496.
[32] Hall, B. R&D Tax Policy during the 1980s: Success or Failure. Tax Policy and the Economy, 1993:1-35.
[33] Hall, Bronwyn H., and John Van Reenen. How effective are Fiscal Incentives for R&D? A New Review of the Evidence. Research Policy, 2002, (9): 449-469.
[34] Harris, Richard and Qian Cher Li. Exporting R&D, and absorptive capacity in UK establishments. Oxford Economic Papers, 2008, (61): 74-103.
[35] Helfat, C. E. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm research and development. Management Science, 1994, (40): 1720-1747
[36] Henley, J. C. and G. Wilde. Foreign direct investment in China: recent t rends and current policy issues .The World Economy, 1999 , (22) :233-243.
[37] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Journal of Economics, 1997b, (66): 151-175.
[38] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing R&D cooperatives. Discussion Paper, Copenhagen: Centre for Industrial Economics, 1997c: 97-15.
[39] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D: An equivalent result. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2000b, (9): 317-329.
[40] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing R&D cooperatives. De Economics, 2001, (149): 314-345.
[41] Holger and Eric Stroblz. The Effect of R&D Subsidies on Private R&D.Economica, 2007,(74): 215-234.
[42] Hussinger, Katrin. R&D and Subsidies at the Firm Level: An Application of Parametric and Semi-Parametric Two-Step Selection Models. ZEW Discussion, 2003.
[43] Jones, Charles I., and Williams John C. Measuring the Social Return to R&D. Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC, 1977.
[44] Jones, O. and M. Craven. Absorptive capacity and new organizational capabilities: A TCS case study. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working Paper Series .2001, No. 01/02.
[45] Kamien, M.I. and Zang, I. Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2000, (18): 995-1012.
[46] Kamien, M.I., and E. Muller and I. Zang. Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels. American Economic Review, 1992, (82): 1293-1306.
[47] Katrin, Hussinger. Crowding out or Stimulus: The Effect of Public R&D Subsidies on Firm's R&D expenditure. Working paper, 2003.
[48] Keller, W. Absorptive capacity: On the creation and acquisition of technology in development. Journal of Development Economics, 1996), (49): 199-227.
[49] Kim L. Crisis Construction and organizational learning: capability building in catching-up at hyundai motor. Organization Science, 1998, (9): 506-521.
[50] Kokko A. Technology, market characteristics and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics, 1994, (43): 279 - 293.
[51] Kokko, A., Tansini, R. and Zejan, M. Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. Journal of Development Studies, 1996, (32): 602 - 611.
[52] Lach, S. Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D, Evidence from Israel. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2002, (4): 369-390.
[53] Lane, P. J. and Lubatkin, M. Relative Absorptive Capacity and Inter organizational Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, (9): 461-477.
[54] Leahy, D. and J.P. Neary. Public Policy towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries. American Economic Review, 1997,(87): 642-662.
[55] Leahy, D. and J.P. Neary. R&D in Developing Countries: What Should Governments Do. Working paper, 1999.
[56] Leahy, D. and Neary, J.P.. Absorptive capacity, R&D spillovers, and public policy. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2007: 1089-1108.
[57] Levy, David M. Estimating the impact of government R&D.Economic Letters, , 1990,(32): 169-173.
[58] Levy, David M., and Nestor E. Terleckyj. Effects of Government R&D on Private R&D Investment and Productivity: a Macroeconomic Analysis. Bell Journal of Economics, 1983, (14): 551-561.
[59] Lichtenberg, Frank R. The Effect of Government Funding on Private inDustrial Research and Development: a re-assessment, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1987, (36): 97-104.
[60] Lucas, Robert E., Jr. On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economic Review, 1988, (80): 92-96.
[61] Mar(?)a J. Oltra and Marisa Flor, The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Innovative Capabilities on Firms' Output Innovation.Creativity and innovation management, 2003.
[62] Martin, S., and Scott, J.T. The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation. Research Policy, 2000, (29): 437-47
[63] Mette Praest Knudsen. and Bent Dalum. and Gert Villumsen. Two Faces of Absorptive Capacity Creation: Access and Utilisation of Knowledge. Working paper, 2001.
[64] Mowery, D C, Oxley, J E, and Silverman, B S. Strategic Alliances and Inter Firm Knowledge Transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, (17): 77 - 91.
[65] Narula, R."Understanding Absorptive Capacity in an Innovation System Context: Consequences for Economic and Employment Growth. MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum series, 2004, No. 3, Maastricht.
[66] Nelson, R.R. The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 1959, (67): 297-306.
[67] Olofsdotter K. Foreign Direct Investment, Country Capabilities and Economic Growth. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1998,134, 3.
[68] P. Mauro, Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1995: 681-712.
[69] P.Lindsay and D.Norman. Human Information processing. 1977, 2nd,ed.Chap. 17. 8.
[70] Paul and Hall and toole. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for positive R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 2000.
[71] Robson, Martin. Federal funding and the level of private expenditure onbasic research, Southern Economic Journal, 1993, (60): 63-71.
[72] Romer, Paul M. Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1986, (10): 1002-1037.
[73] Romer, Paul M. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, (98): s71-s102.
[74] Schmidt, Tobias. Absorptive Capacity-One size fits all? A Firm-level Analysis of Absorptive Capacity for Different Kinds of Knowledge.Managerial and Decision Economics, 2005, forthcoming.
[75] Shrieves, Ronald E. Market structure and innovation: a new perspective, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1978, (26): 329-347.
[76] Spence, M. Cost reduction, competition and industry performance. Econometric,1984, (52): 101-121.
[77] Spencer, B.J. and J.A. Brander. International R&D rivalry and industrial strategy.Review of Economic Studies, 1983, (4): 707-722.
[78] Torstensson, J. Property rights and economic growth: an empirical study. Kyklos,1994, (47): 231-247.
[79] Tsai, W. Knowledge transfers in intra-organizational networks. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, (44): 996-1004.
[80] Van Wijk, R., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. The impact of the depth and breadth of knowledge absorbed on levels of exploration and exploitation.Academy of Management Meeting, BPS division, Insights into Knowledge Transfer,Washington DC, USA, 2001, August 3-8.
[81] Veugelers, R. Internal R&D Expenditures and External Technology Sourcing.Research Policy, 1997, (3): 303-316
[82] Von Tunzelmann N. and B. Martin. Public vs. Private Funding of R&D and Rates of Growth: 1963-1995. Working Paper, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 1998.
[83] Wallsten, Scott J. Do Government-Industry R&D Programs increasePrivate R&D?The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program.Department of Economics Working Paper, Stanford University, 1999..
[84] Wang, J. and M. Blomstrom. Foreign Investment and TechnologyTransfer: A Simple Model. European Economic Review, 1992,(36): 137-55.
[85] Warda, J. Measuring the value of R&D tax Provisions, in OECD. Fiscal Measures to Promote R&D and Innovation. Paris, 1996, No9-22.
[86] Xu B. Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth, Journal of Development Economics, 2000, (Vol.62): 477-493.
[87] Zahra, S.A. and G. George. Absorptive capacity: a review and reconceptualization,and extension. Academy of Management Review, 2002, (27): 185-203.
[88] 符宁．我国出口贸易技术外溢的实证分析．当代经济．2007，(3)：92-93。
[89] 程华，陈贤平．国外激励企业R&D的财政政策趋势研究．科学学与科学技术管理，2006，(3)：32-35。
[90] 戴晨，刘怡．税收优惠与财政补贴对企业R&D影响的比较分析．经济科学，2008，(3)：58-71。
[91] 高旭东．技术创新能力培养：特定的培养顺序还是有效的R&D．科学学与科学技术管理，2005，(6)：64-68。
[92] 何洁．外商直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化．世界经济，2000，(8)：58-68。
[93] 何洁，许罗丹．中国工业部门引起外国直接投资外溢效应的实证研究．世界经济文 汇，1999，(2)：16-21。
[94] 黄静．影响FDI技术外溢效果的因素分析-基于吸收能力的研究．世界经济研究，2006，(8)：60-66。
[95] 黄凌云，范艳霞等．基于东道国吸收能力的FDI技术溢出效应．中国软科学，2007，(3)：30-34。
[96] 霍沛军，陈继祥．针对国内双寡头的最优R&D补贴策略．系统工程学报，2002,(2)：115-121。
[97] 霍沛军，陈继祥，陈剑．R&D补贴与社会次佳R&D．管理工程学报，2004，(2)：16-18。
[98] 蒋殿春，黄静．微观层面吸收能力对FDI技术外溢的影响．经济与管理研究．2006，(11)：75-79。
[99] 蒋建军，齐建国．激励企业R&D支出的税收政策效应研究．中国软科学，2007，(8)：65-70。
[100] 赖明勇，包群等．外商直接投资的吸收能力：理论及中国的实证研究．上海经济研究，2002，(6)：9-17。
[101] 赖明勇，包群等．外商直接投资与技术外溢：基于吸收能力的研究．经济研究，2005，(8)：95-105。
[102] 李文．创新税收激励的国际比较与借鉴．税务研究，2007(4)：54-59。
[103] 刘厚俊，刘正良．人力资本门槛与FDI效应吸收--中国地区数据的实证检验．经济科学，2006(5)：90-98。
[104] 柳剑平，郑绪涛，喻美辞．税收、补贴与R&D溢出效应．数量经济与技术经济研究，2005，(12)：81-90。
[105] 米加宁，宋纯朴．企业研发投入的税收优惠政策：国际实践与启示．中国科技论坛，2003，(5)：69-72。
[106] 潘士远，林毅夫．发展战略、知识吸收能力与经济收敛．数量经济技术经济研究，2006，(2)：3-13。
[107] 石林芬，何榕，刘莹．OECD国家的R&D税收激励政策及其对我国的启示．科技管理研究，2004(3)：3-5。
[108] 苏启林．研究与开发税收激励政策的国际比较及其启示．外国经济与管理，2003，(4)：39-44。
[109] 王卉珏，谢科范．跨国公司R&D国际化与我国科技政策调整．中国科技论坛，2003，(5)：23-25。
[110] 吴伯翔，阎海峰．吸收能力：概念框架及其在研究的应用．经济学与经济管理，2005，(7)：54-59。
[111] 张海洋．中国工业部门R&D吸收能力与外资技术扩散．管理世界，2005，(6)：82-88。
[112] 张军果，任浩．吸收能力与竞争企业研发投资及方式选择．系统工程，2007，(4)：64-68。
[113] 张宇．FDI技术外溢的地区差异与吸收能力的门限特征--基于中国省际面板数据的门限回归分析．数量经济技术经济研究，2008，(1)：28-39。
[114] 赵伟，汪全立．人力资本与技术溢出：基于进口传导机制的实证研究．中国软科学，2008，(4)：66-74。
[115] 郑绪涛．中国自主创新能力影响因素的实证分析．工业技术经济．2009，(5)：56-61。
[116] 郑绪涛，柳剑平．促进R&D活动的税收和补贴工具的政策搭配．产业经济研究、2008，(1)：26-36。
[117] 钟昌标．我国利用外贸纽带促进技术进步的机制与持续利用的关键．经济问题探索，2001，(3)：78-80。
[118] 周剑．外资技术溢出吸收能力的衡量指标体系及国际比较．国际商务-对外经济贸易大学学报，2006，(2)：69-72。
[119] 朱平芳，徐伟抿．政府的科技激励政策对大中型工业企业R&D投入及其专利产出的影响--上海市的实证研究．经济研究，2003，(6)：45-54。
[120] 朱维芳．东道国吸收能力对FDI技术溢出效应影响研究．中原工程院学报，2006，(10)：58-60。
[2] Bernstein, J. The Effect of Direct and Indirect Tax Incentives on Canadian Industrial R&D Expenditures. Canadian Public Policy-Analyse de Politiques, 1986,(12): 438-448.
[3] Bernstein, J. The Canadian Corporate Tax Structure and the Effects on the Manufacturing Production, Costs and Efficiency. Mimeo, Carleton University, 1988.
[4] Bernstein, J. and Nadiri, M.I. Interindustry R&D Spillovers, Rate of Return, and Production in High Technology Industries. American Economic Review, 1988, (78):429-34.
[5] Bernstein, Jeffrey. The Structure of Canadian Interindustry R&D Spillovers and the Rates of Return to R&D. Journal of Industrial Economics, 1989, (21): 324-4.
[6] Blomstrom, M. and F. Sjoholm, Technology Transfer and Spillovers: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter.European Economic Review, 1999, (43):915-923.
[7] Bloom, N., R. Griffith. and J. van Reenen. Do R&D Credits Work? Evidence from a Panel of Countries 1979-97. Journal of Public Economics, 2002, (85): 1-31
[8] Borensztein. E, Gregorio J.D and Lee J-W. How does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth? Journal of International Economics, 1998, (45) 115-135.
[9] Busom, Isabel. An Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of R&D Subsidies, Working Paper, 1999, No. B99-05, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
[10] Cantwell, J., Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1989.
[11] Carl Davidson and Paul Segerstrom, R&D Subsidies and Economic Growth, Working paper, 1997.
[12] Carmichael, Jeffrey. The effects of mission-oriented public R&D spending on private industry. Journal of Finance, 1981, (36): 617-627.
[13] Cassiman, Bruno and Reinhilde Veugelers. R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence. American Economic Review, 2002, (Vol92): 1169-1183.
[14] Cassiman, Bruno. In Search of Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition. Working paper, 2005.
[15] Caves, R.E., Multinational Firms, Competition and Productivity in Host-Country Markets.Economica, 1974,(41): 176-193.
[16] Cohen, W.M., and D. Levinthal. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 1989, (99): 569-596.
[17] Cohen, W.M., and D. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, (35): 128-152.
[18] Colombo, M. G. and Gerrone, P. Technological Cooperative Agreements and Firm's R&D Intensity. A Note on Causality Relations. Research Policy, 1996, (25):923-932
[19] d'Aspremont, C. and A. Jacquemin. Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers. American Economic Review, 1988, (78): 1133-1137
[20] Damiano, B.S. The Economics of Cooperation and Competition in Research and Development: A Survey. Working paper, 2003.
[21] David, P., Hall, B. and Toole, A. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private? A Review of the Econometric Evidence. Research Policy, 2000: 497-529.
[22] Dixit, A., and J.Stiglitz. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 1977, (67): 297-308.
[23] Dominique Guellec and Bruno Van Pottelsberghe. The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D, Economics of Innovation and New Technology,Working paper, 2003: 225-243.
[24] Emmanuel, Duguet. Are R&D Subsidies a Substitute or a Complement to Privately Funded R&D? Evidence from France Using Propensity Score Methods for Non-experimental Data. Working Paper, 2003.
[25] G.M.Grossman and E.Helpman. Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994, (8): 23-44.
[26] Globerman, S. Foreign Direct Investment and Spillover Efficiency Benefits in Canadian Manufacturing Industries. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1979, (12): 42-56.
[27] Goolsbee, Austan. Does government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers? National Bureau Of Economic Research. Working Paper, 1998, No. 6532.
[28] Griliches, Zvi, and Haim Regev. R&D, Government Support and Firm Productivity in Israeli Industry. In Spivack, R. N. (ed.) Papers and Proceedings of the Advanced Technology Program's International Conference on the Economic Evaluation of Technological Change, NIST Special Publication. 2001: 59-67.
[29] Grunfeld, Leo A. Meet Me Halfway but don't Rush Absorptive capacity and strategic R&D investment. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003, (vol.21): 1091-1109.
[30] Guellec, Dominique and Bruno Van Pottelsbrghe.The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D .STI Working Papers, OECD, June 2000.
[31] Gupta and Govindarajan.. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, (21): 473-496.
[32] Hall, B. R&D Tax Policy during the 1980s: Success or Failure. Tax Policy and the Economy, 1993:1-35.
[33] Hall, Bronwyn H., and John Van Reenen. How effective are Fiscal Incentives for R&D? A New Review of the Evidence. Research Policy, 2002, (9): 449-469.
[34] Harris, Richard and Qian Cher Li. Exporting R&D, and absorptive capacity in UK establishments. Oxford Economic Papers, 2008, (61): 74-103.
[35] Helfat, C. E. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm research and development. Management Science, 1994, (40): 1720-1747
[36] Henley, J. C. and G. Wilde. Foreign direct investment in China: recent t rends and current policy issues .The World Economy, 1999 , (22) :233-243.
[37] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Journal of Economics, 1997b, (66): 151-175.
[38] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing R&D cooperatives. Discussion Paper, Copenhagen: Centre for Industrial Economics, 1997c: 97-15.
[39] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D: An equivalent result. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2000b, (9): 317-329.
[40] Hinloopen, J. Subsidizing R&D cooperatives. De Economics, 2001, (149): 314-345.
[41] Holger and Eric Stroblz. The Effect of R&D Subsidies on Private R&D.Economica, 2007,(74): 215-234.
[42] Hussinger, Katrin. R&D and Subsidies at the Firm Level: An Application of Parametric and Semi-Parametric Two-Step Selection Models. ZEW Discussion, 2003.
[43] Jones, Charles I., and Williams John C. Measuring the Social Return to R&D. Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC, 1977.
[44] Jones, O. and M. Craven. Absorptive capacity and new organizational capabilities: A TCS case study. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working Paper Series .2001, No. 01/02.
[45] Kamien, M.I. and Zang, I. Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2000, (18): 995-1012.
[46] Kamien, M.I., and E. Muller and I. Zang. Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels. American Economic Review, 1992, (82): 1293-1306.
[47] Katrin, Hussinger. Crowding out or Stimulus: The Effect of Public R&D Subsidies on Firm's R&D expenditure. Working paper, 2003.
[48] Keller, W. Absorptive capacity: On the creation and acquisition of technology in development. Journal of Development Economics, 1996), (49): 199-227.
[49] Kim L. Crisis Construction and organizational learning: capability building in catching-up at hyundai motor. Organization Science, 1998, (9): 506-521.
[50] Kokko A. Technology, market characteristics and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics, 1994, (43): 279 - 293.
[51] Kokko, A., Tansini, R. and Zejan, M. Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. Journal of Development Studies, 1996, (32): 602 - 611.
[52] Lach, S. Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D, Evidence from Israel. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2002, (4): 369-390.
[53] Lane, P. J. and Lubatkin, M. Relative Absorptive Capacity and Inter organizational Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, (9): 461-477.
[54] Leahy, D. and J.P. Neary. Public Policy towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries. American Economic Review, 1997,(87): 642-662.
[55] Leahy, D. and J.P. Neary. R&D in Developing Countries: What Should Governments Do. Working paper, 1999.
[56] Leahy, D. and Neary, J.P.. Absorptive capacity, R&D spillovers, and public policy. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2007: 1089-1108.
[57] Levy, David M. Estimating the impact of government R&D.Economic Letters, , 1990,(32): 169-173.
[58] Levy, David M., and Nestor E. Terleckyj. Effects of Government R&D on Private R&D Investment and Productivity: a Macroeconomic Analysis. Bell Journal of Economics, 1983, (14): 551-561.
[59] Lichtenberg, Frank R. The Effect of Government Funding on Private inDustrial Research and Development: a re-assessment, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1987, (36): 97-104.
[60] Lucas, Robert E., Jr. On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economic Review, 1988, (80): 92-96.
[61] Mar(?)a J. Oltra and Marisa Flor, The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Innovative Capabilities on Firms' Output Innovation.Creativity and innovation management, 2003.
[62] Martin, S., and Scott, J.T. The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation. Research Policy, 2000, (29): 437-47
[63] Mette Praest Knudsen. and Bent Dalum. and Gert Villumsen. Two Faces of Absorptive Capacity Creation: Access and Utilisation of Knowledge. Working paper, 2001.
[64] Mowery, D C, Oxley, J E, and Silverman, B S. Strategic Alliances and Inter Firm Knowledge Transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, (17): 77 - 91.
[65] Narula, R."Understanding Absorptive Capacity in an Innovation System Context: Consequences for Economic and Employment Growth. MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum series, 2004, No. 3, Maastricht.
[66] Nelson, R.R. The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 1959, (67): 297-306.
[67] Olofsdotter K. Foreign Direct Investment, Country Capabilities and Economic Growth. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1998,134, 3.
[68] P. Mauro, Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1995: 681-712.
[69] P.Lindsay and D.Norman. Human Information processing. 1977, 2nd,ed.Chap. 17. 8.
[70] Paul and Hall and toole. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for positive R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 2000.
[71] Robson, Martin. Federal funding and the level of private expenditure onbasic research, Southern Economic Journal, 1993, (60): 63-71.
[72] Romer, Paul M. Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1986, (10): 1002-1037.
[73] Romer, Paul M. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, (98): s71-s102.
[74] Schmidt, Tobias. Absorptive Capacity-One size fits all? A Firm-level Analysis of Absorptive Capacity for Different Kinds of Knowledge.Managerial and Decision Economics, 2005, forthcoming.
[75] Shrieves, Ronald E. Market structure and innovation: a new perspective, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1978, (26): 329-347.
[76] Spence, M. Cost reduction, competition and industry performance. Econometric,1984, (52): 101-121.
[77] Spencer, B.J. and J.A. Brander. International R&D rivalry and industrial strategy.Review of Economic Studies, 1983, (4): 707-722.
[78] Torstensson, J. Property rights and economic growth: an empirical study. Kyklos,1994, (47): 231-247.
[79] Tsai, W. Knowledge transfers in intra-organizational networks. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, (44): 996-1004.
[80] Van Wijk, R., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. The impact of the depth and breadth of knowledge absorbed on levels of exploration and exploitation.Academy of Management Meeting, BPS division, Insights into Knowledge Transfer,Washington DC, USA, 2001, August 3-8.
[81] Veugelers, R. Internal R&D Expenditures and External Technology Sourcing.Research Policy, 1997, (3): 303-316
[82] Von Tunzelmann N. and B. Martin. Public vs. Private Funding of R&D and Rates of Growth: 1963-1995. Working Paper, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 1998.
[83] Wallsten, Scott J. Do Government-Industry R&D Programs increasePrivate R&D?The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program.Department of Economics Working Paper, Stanford University, 1999..
[84] Wang, J. and M. Blomstrom. Foreign Investment and TechnologyTransfer: A Simple Model. European Economic Review, 1992,(36): 137-55.
[85] Warda, J. Measuring the value of R&D tax Provisions, in OECD. Fiscal Measures to Promote R&D and Innovation. Paris, 1996, No9-22.
[86] Xu B. Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth, Journal of Development Economics, 2000, (Vol.62): 477-493.
[87] Zahra, S.A. and G. George. Absorptive capacity: a review and reconceptualization,and extension. Academy of Management Review, 2002, (27): 185-203.
[88] 符宁．我国出口贸易技术外溢的实证分析．当代经济．2007，(3)：92-93。
[89] 程华，陈贤平．国外激励企业R&D的财政政策趋势研究．科学学与科学技术管理，2006，(3)：32-35。
[90] 戴晨，刘怡．税收优惠与财政补贴对企业R&D影响的比较分析．经济科学，2008，(3)：58-71。
[91] 高旭东．技术创新能力培养：特定的培养顺序还是有效的R&D．科学学与科学技术管理，2005，(6)：64-68。
[92] 何洁．外商直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化．世界经济，2000，(8)：58-68。
[93] 何洁，许罗丹．中国工业部门引起外国直接投资外溢效应的实证研究．世界经济文 汇，1999，(2)：16-21。
[94] 黄静．影响FDI技术外溢效果的因素分析-基于吸收能力的研究．世界经济研究，2006，(8)：60-66。
[95] 黄凌云，范艳霞等．基于东道国吸收能力的FDI技术溢出效应．中国软科学，2007，(3)：30-34。
[96] 霍沛军，陈继祥．针对国内双寡头的最优R&D补贴策略．系统工程学报，2002,(2)：115-121。
[97] 霍沛军，陈继祥，陈剑．R&D补贴与社会次佳R&D．管理工程学报，2004，(2)：16-18。
[98] 蒋殿春，黄静．微观层面吸收能力对FDI技术外溢的影响．经济与管理研究．2006，(11)：75-79。
[99] 蒋建军，齐建国．激励企业R&D支出的税收政策效应研究．中国软科学，2007，(8)：65-70。
[100] 赖明勇，包群等．外商直接投资的吸收能力：理论及中国的实证研究．上海经济研究，2002，(6)：9-17。
[101] 赖明勇，包群等．外商直接投资与技术外溢：基于吸收能力的研究．经济研究，2005，(8)：95-105。
[102] 李文．创新税收激励的国际比较与借鉴．税务研究，2007(4)：54-59。
[103] 刘厚俊，刘正良．人力资本门槛与FDI效应吸收--中国地区数据的实证检验．经济科学，2006(5)：90-98。
[104] 柳剑平，郑绪涛，喻美辞．税收、补贴与R&D溢出效应．数量经济与技术经济研究，2005，(12)：81-90。
[105] 米加宁，宋纯朴．企业研发投入的税收优惠政策：国际实践与启示．中国科技论坛，2003，(5)：69-72。
[106] 潘士远，林毅夫．发展战略、知识吸收能力与经济收敛．数量经济技术经济研究，2006，(2)：3-13。
[107] 石林芬，何榕，刘莹．OECD国家的R&D税收激励政策及其对我国的启示．科技管理研究，2004(3)：3-5。
[108] 苏启林．研究与开发税收激励政策的国际比较及其启示．外国经济与管理，2003，(4)：39-44。
[109] 王卉珏，谢科范．跨国公司R&D国际化与我国科技政策调整．中国科技论坛，2003，(5)：23-25。
[110] 吴伯翔，阎海峰．吸收能力：概念框架及其在研究的应用．经济学与经济管理，2005，(7)：54-59。
[111] 张海洋．中国工业部门R&D吸收能力与外资技术扩散．管理世界，2005，(6)：82-88。
[112] 张军果，任浩．吸收能力与竞争企业研发投资及方式选择．系统工程，2007，(4)：64-68。
[113] 张宇．FDI技术外溢的地区差异与吸收能力的门限特征--基于中国省际面板数据的门限回归分析．数量经济技术经济研究，2008，(1)：28-39。
[114] 赵伟，汪全立．人力资本与技术溢出：基于进口传导机制的实证研究．中国软科学，2008，(4)：66-74。
[115] 郑绪涛．中国自主创新能力影响因素的实证分析．工业技术经济．2009，(5)：56-61。
[116] 郑绪涛，柳剑平．促进R&D活动的税收和补贴工具的政策搭配．产业经济研究、2008，(1)：26-36。
[117] 钟昌标．我国利用外贸纽带促进技术进步的机制与持续利用的关键．经济问题探索，2001，(3)：78-80。
[118] 周剑．外资技术溢出吸收能力的衡量指标体系及国际比较．国际商务-对外经济贸易大学学报，2006，(2)：69-72。
[119] 朱平芳，徐伟抿．政府的科技激励政策对大中型工业企业R&D投入及其专利产出的影响--上海市的实证研究．经济研究，2003，(6)：45-54。
[120] 朱维芳．东道国吸收能力对FDI技术溢出效应影响研究．中原工程院学报，2006，(10)：58-60。