Abstract

The article deals with the topical issue of R&D tax incentives and their impact on the level of innovation development and macroeconomic stability. The research is based on causality analysis and estimation of the strength, time lags and directions of mutual influence of R&D tax incentives and macro indicators. Systematization literary sources and approaches for solving this problem indicates that R&D tax incentives are studied in fragments in the context of macroeconomic stability. The research’s main purpose is to improve the methodological bases of substantiation of the choice of relevant instruments of innovation stimulation considering causal relations of R&D tax incentives and macro indicators. The paper presents the results of dynamic analysis of R&D tax incentives in 13 European countries, for which OECD statistics for 2007-2017 are freely available. The significance, strength, and nature of the relationship between these indicators and the following macro indicators are determined: the level of the country’s innovation development, the share of investment in GDP (in general and in the corporate sector in particular), net international investment position, the share of the business sector in the cost structure of R&D. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated depending on the variable subordination to the law of normal distribution (verified by the Shapiro – Wilk test) on the admissible calculation interval taking into account time lags from 0 years to 3 years. The causality of the studied indicators was established using the Granger causality test. The calculations are important for the prioritization of instruments for the implementation of innovation support. The highest priority should be given to the establishment of tax incentives for R&D, as this tool’s impact on all studied macro indicators in most countries was direct. Its effect was manifested in the shortest possible time (with a lag of 0-3 years). The second priority should be given to setting hidden rates of business tax subsidies on R&D, as this indicator’s impact on most of the studied indicators was statistically significant and direct with a time lag of 0–3 years. The paper substantiates the inefficiency of direct public financial support, as the impact of this indicator on most of the analyzed macro-indicators was reversed with a lag of 0–2 years. Thus, it is more expedient for the state to help entrepreneurs by providing tax benefits to provide innovation development and macro stability than through direct reimbursement of costs. Moreover, lag regression models were built for those countries where identified links were the most important (Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic). They take into account inflation rates and interest rates on long-term liabilities and the number of labour resources in the country as control variables.

Keywords: causal relations, Granger causality test, innovation, investment position, macro indicators, macroeconomic stability, R&D tax expenditure, R&D, tax incentives, tax subsidies

JEL Classification: O11, O3, H2, E6, E63.

Cite as: Samoilikova, A., Lieonov, S., & Huseynova, A. (2021). Tax incentives for innovation in the context of macroeconomic stability: an analysis of causality. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 135-157. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.1-11

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Baranovskyi, O. I. (2020). Regulation of functional and structural transformational processes in the financial sector. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 1(32), 292-306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Bloom, N., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979–1997. Journal of Public Economics, 85(1), 1-31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Cappelen, Å., Fjærli, E., Foyn, F., Hægeland, T., Møen, J., Raknerud, A., & Rybalka, M. (2010). Evaluation of the Norwegian R&D tax credit scheme. Journal of technology management & innovation, 5(3), 96-109. [GoogleScholar] [CrossRef]
4. Corchuelo, M. B., & Martínez-Ros, E. (2010). Who benefits from R&D tax policy?. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 13(45), 145-170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Czyżewski, B., Matuszczak, A., & Miśkiewicz, R. (2019). Public goods versus the farm price-cost squeeze: shaping the sustainability of the EU’s common agricultural policy. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(1), 82-102. [CrossRef]
6. Fazio, C., Guzman, J., & Stern, S. (2020). The impact of state-level research and development tax credits on the quantity and quality of entrepreneurship. Economic Development Quarterly, 34(2), 188-208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Guceri, I. (2016). Tax incentives for R&D. University of Oxford, Centre for Business Taxation. [Google Scholar]
9. Guceri, I., & Liu, L. (2015). Effectiveness of fiscal incentives for R&D: quasi-experimental evidence WP15/12. [Google Scholar]
10. Hall, B., & Van Reenen, J. (2000). How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence. Research policy, 29(4-5), 449-469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Hodzic, S., & Becic, E. (2016). Tax Incentives For R&D of Large Companies: Empirical Analysis on Croatia. Actual Problems of Economics, 8 (182), 172-179. [GoogleScholar]
12. Hrytsenko, L. L., Roienko, V., & Boiarko, I. M. (2018). Institutional background of the role of state in investment processes activation. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 1(24), 338-344. [CrossRef]
13. Inflation, GDP deflator (annual %). World Bank Data. Retrieved from [Link]
14. Intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by source of funds. EU Statistical Office. Retrieved from [Link]
15. Investment by Corporate sector, % of GFCF. OECD Data. Retrieved from [Link]
16. Investment share of GDP by institutional sectors – % of GDP. EU Statistical Office. Retrieved from [Link]
17. James, S. (2013). Tax and non-tax incentives and investments: evidence and policy implications. FIAS, The World Bank Group. [Google Scholar]
18. Jones, C. I., & Williams, J. C. (1998). Measuring the social return to R&D. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1119-1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Kashintseva, V., Strielkowski, W., Streimikis, J., & Veynbender, T. (2018). Consumer attitudes towards industrial CO2 capture and storage products and technologies. Energies, 11(10), 2787. [CrossRef]
20. Klemm, A. (2009). Causes, benefits, and risks of business tax incentives. IMF Working Papers, 1-27. [GoogleScholar]
21. Koga, T. (2003). Firm size and R&D tax incentives. Technovation, 23(7), 643-648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Kuznetsova, A., Pohorelenko, N. (2020). Mechanism of providing financial stability of the banking system of Ukraine. Financial and credit activity-problems of theory and practice, 4. P. 37-47. [CrossRef]
23. Labor force participation rate, total (% of total population ages 15-64) (modeled ILO estimate). World Bank Data. Retrieved from [Link]
24. Lee, C. Y. (2011). The differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D: Theory and evidence from multi-country data. Technovation, 31(5-6), 256-269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Li, W., & Du, J. (2016). Tax incentives, adjustment costs, and R&D investment in China. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 4(4), 433-455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Lopez, L., & Weber, S. (2017). Testing for Granger causality in panel data. The Stata Journal, 17(4), 972-984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Maastricht criterion interest rates. EU Statistical Office. Retrieved from [Link]
28. Miśkiewicz, R, & Wolniak, R. (2020). Practical Application of the Industry 4.0 Concept in a Steel Company. Sustainability, 12(14), 5776. [CrossRef]
29. Net international investment position – annual data. EU Statistical Office. Retrieved from [Link]
30. OECD R&D Tax Incentive Database. General and country-specific notes. Retrieved from [Link].
31. Pearson, K. (1896). VII. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.—III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical or physical character, (187), 253-318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. R&D tax expenditure and direct government funding of BERD. OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics. Retrieved from [Link]
33. R&D tax expenditure and direct government funding of BERD. Retrieved from [Link]
34. Savchenko, T., Basiurkina, N., Rodina, O., & Kwilinski, A. (2019). Improvement of the assessment methods of product competitiveness of the specialized poultry enterprises. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 41(1), 43-61. [CrossRef]
35. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Simionescu, M., Strielkowski, W., & Kalyugina, S. (2017). The impact of Brexit on labour migration and labour markets in the United Kingdom and the EU. Terra Economicus, 15(1), 148-156. [CrossRef]
37. Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American journal of psychology, 100(3/4), 441-471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Strielkowski, W., & Höschle, F. (2016). Evidence for economic convergence in the EU: The analysis of past EU enlargements. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(4), 617-630. [CrossRef]
39. Tassey, G. (1996). Choosing government R&D policies: Tax incentives vs. direct funding. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(5), 579-600. [GoogleScholar] [CrossRef]
40. Tastan, H. (2015). Testing for spectral Granger causality. The Stata Journal, 15(4), 1157-1166. [GoogleScholar]
41. Tiutiunyk, I., Kobushko, I., Ivaniy, O., & Flaumer, A. (2019). Innovations in the Management of Tax Gaps in the Economy: Foreign Economic Component. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 112-125. [GoogleScholar] [CrossRef]
42. Tkachenko, V., Kwilinski, A., Klymchuk, M., & Tkachenko, I. (2019). The economic-mathematical development of buildings construction model optimization on the basis of digital economy. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 27(2), 119-123. [CrossRef]
43. Vovchak O. D., Rudevska V. I., Pohorila O. V. (2018). Challenges of inflation targeting in Ukraine: establishing the mega-regulator. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 1(24), P. 305-311. [CrossRef]
44. Warda, J. (2001). Measuring the Value of R&D Tax Treatment in OECD Countries, Special Issue on New Science and Technology Indicators, STI Review No. 27. [GoogleScholar]
45. Іmplied tax subsidy rates on R&D expenditures. OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics. Retrieved from [Link]