Conclusions: Implications for State Aid Design and Implementation, and Lessons Learned (Step 4)

No AccessAug 2021Conclusions: Implications for State Aid Design and Implementation, and Lessons Learned (Step 4)Authors/Editors: Georgiana Pop, Mariana Iootty, Miriam Bruhn, Claudia Ruiz OrtegaGeorgiana PopSearch for more papers by this author, Mariana IoottySearch for more papers by this author, Miriam BruhnSearch for more papers by this author, Claudia Ruiz OrtegaSearch for more papers by this authorhttps://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1703-8_ch5AboutView ChaptersFull TextPDF (0.5 MB) ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Abstract: Discusses the implications of the empirical analysis (on direct and indirect effects) for the design and implementation of Romania’s aid scheme, focusing on potential adjustments to scheme design—such as redefining the scheme objective, changing target beneficiaries, and altering selection criteria—and scheme implementation. The Romanian Counter-Guarantee Fund (RCG) scheme fulfilled its objective of supporting entrepreneurship, increasing the employment and turnover of beneficiary firms, and reducing the probability of aided firms closing. The Ministry of Public Finance (MPF) scheme showed a positive direct effect on employment and, to some extent, on investment. The Ministry of European Funds (MEF) scheme fulfilled its objective of promoting research and development (R&D) efforts, increasing the R&D expenses of beneficiaries, depending on the control group used. Despite the positive results achieved by these schemes, it remains important to review their overall implementation to maximize their efficiency and effectiveness for informing future aid design. ReferencesBronzini, R and P Piselli 2014. “The Impact of R&D Subsidies on Firm Innovation.” Economic Working Papers 960, Bank of Italy, Rome. Google ScholarBruhn, M and D McKenzie 2019. “Can Grants to Consortia Spur Innovation and Science-Industry Collaboration? Regression-Discontinuity Evidence from Poland.” World Bank Economic Review 33 (3): 690–716. doi: 10.1093/wber/lhx014. LinkGoogle ScholarCzarnitzki, D, H Hottenrott, and S Thorwarth 2011. “Industrial Research versus Development Investment: The Implications of Financial Constraints.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 35: 527–44. Google ScholarHall, B, J Mairesse, and P Mohnen 2010. “Measuring the Returns to R&D.” Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edited by Hall, B H and N Rosenberg (Vol. 2), 1033–82. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google ScholarWorld Bank. 2018. Rethinking Lagging Regions: Using Cohesion Policy to Deliver on the Potential of Europe’s Regions. Washington, DC: World Bank. Google Scholar Previous chapterNext chapter FiguresreferencesRecommendeddetails View Published: August 2021ISBN: 978-1-4648-1703-8 Copyright & Permissions Related CountriesRomaniaRelated TopicsFinance and Financial Sector DevelopmentMacroeconomics and Economic GrowthPrivate Sector DevelopmentScience and Technology Development KeywordsCOMPETITIONRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTR&DINNOVATIONAID EFFECTIVENESSSPILLOVER EFFECTSMARKET FORCESPUBLIC INVESTMENTINVESTMENT CLIMATESTATE AIDGUARANTEE PROGRAMSMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZE ENTERPRISESSMESMICROENTERPRISESENTREPRENEURSDEVELOPMENT OUTCOMESLESSONS LEARNED PDF DownloadLoading ...