The Design of R&D Support Schemes for Industry

Authors

  • Russell Thomson,

    Corresponding author
    • Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Elizabeth Webster

    1. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Thanks to Rob Bryant and Phil Ruthven for permission to use IBISWorld Business Information, Evan Lloyd for research assistance and Deborah Cobb-Clark and Jonathan Chew for comments. Funding for this research was provided by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change but do not represent the opinions and views of the Department.

Correspondence: Russell Thomson, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Level 7, 161 Barry Street, Carlton, VIC 3010, Australia. Email: russell.thomson@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Scant discussion exists in the literature about the relative design merits of various R&D schemes, and most authors treat programme design as a black box. In this article, we assess the design features of three major forms of R&D support: entitlement schemes, competitive grant schemes and industry R&D boards. We use a combination of evidence to comment on how well these schemes perform in terms of firm engagement (how does the scheme recruit business interest?), project selection (what criteria are used and who selects the projects?), payment structure (how is financial support structured?) and administrative costs (what is the burden?).

Ancillary