International Best Practices of R&D Public Funding: Cases of the US and EU

After the global financial crisis of 2007-2009, multiple countries have faced tight budget constraints and slowdown in economic activity. In such conditions, OECD countries have started to pay more attention to implementing R&D programs aimed at boosting economic growth and social welfare. Emerging countries are also trying to collect best practices in this area for adapting the latter to national circumstances in order to ensure sustainable innovation development. The most promising examples of R&D policy tools are those used in the USA and EU. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study focused on the objectives of R&D programs in the USA and EU, the usage of particular tools for financial support of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the development of public-private partnerships and international cooperation in such areas like creation and distribution of new technologies. If public funding of various fields of science in the EU is quite centralised within the specific large-scale framework programs, then such programs in the USA are less scaled, but much more focused and are related to particular areas like fostering R&D activities in small enterprises. Both the EU and the USA are actively developing international cooperation in the field of science and technology, including some collaborative projects with each other. We also analyze budgets and tools for public R&D funding in the private sector. There is an intensive use of various tools to enhance the creation of public-private partnerships as well as both direct and indirect instruments for R&D funding in the EU and the USA. We pay particular attention to managing R&D programs in terms of coordinating all stakeholders being involved. Our analysis reveals both the common and distinctive features of R&D programs as well as the most effective forms and best practices used in R&D programs in the EU and the USA.

1. Abdrakhmanova G., Gorodnikova N., Gokhberg L., Gracheva G., Zabaturina I., Zaichenko S., Kovaleva G., Kovaleva N., Kuznetsova V., Kuznetsova I., Ozerova O., Ratai T., Rosovetskaya L., Sagieva G., Fridlyanova S., Fursov K., Shuvalova O. (2012). Ekonomika znanii v terminakh statistiki: nauka, tekhnologii, innovatsii, obrazovanie, informatsionnoe obshchestvo: slovar' [Economics of knowledge in statistical terms: science, technologies, innovations, education, informational society: dictionary]. Ed. by L. Gokhberg. Moscow: Ekonomika, 240 p.

2. Bayona­-Sáez С., García-­Marco T. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program. Research Policy. Vol. 39. P. 1375–1386.

3. Brodowski M. H. (2017). Changes to Bayh­Dole act regulations impacting ownership of patent rights. URL: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/publications/2017/04/04_10_17­changes­to­bayh­dole­actregulations­impa (accessed 14.09.2018).

4. Danilin I.V. (2011). Sovremennaya nauchno-tekhnicheskaya politika SSHA: instrumenty i osnovnye napravleniya [Contemporary Scientific and Technological Policy of the USA: Instruments and Main Directions]. Moscow: IMEMO RAN. 140 p.

5. Fikkers D.J., Horvat M. (eds) (2014). Basic Principles for effective International Science, Technology and Innovation Agreements. Main report. 2014. Brussels: Directorate­General for Research and Innovation International Cooperation. 62 p. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/publications/Final_Basic_Principles_Science_Tech_Innovation­MainReport.pdf (accessed 14.09.2018).

6. Firoozmand S., Haxel P., Jung E., Suominen K. (2015). State of SME Finance in the United States in 2015. 39 p. URL: http://www.tradeupfund.com/uploads/2/6/0/4/26048023/state_of_sme_finance_in_the_united_states_2015.pdf (accessed 14.09.2018).

7. Gershman M., Kuznetsova T. (2016). The future of Russian science through the prism of public policy. Foresight. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 320-­339.

8. Gokhberg L., Kuznetsova T. (2016). Russian Federation. In: UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. P. 343–363.

9. Gorodnikova N., Gokhberg L., Ditkovskiy K. et al. (eds) (2018). Science and Technology Indicators 2018: Data Book. 2018. Moscow: HSE. 320 p.

10. Huergo E., Moreno L. (2017). Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R & D support programmes. Research Policy. Vol. 46. P. 1198–1214.

11. Istomin I.A. (2018). Izmerenie produktivnosti i rezul’tativnosti nauchnykh issledovanij: opyt SSHA [Measurement of Productivity and Effectiveness of Scientific Research: record of the USA]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 127–141.

12. Istomin I.A. (2016). Gosudarstvennaya podderzhka nauchnykh issledovanij v SSHA: sovremennyj etap evolutsii v kontekste politicheskoj bor’by [State Support of Scientific Research in the USA: Current Evolution in the Context of Political Struggle]. Sravnitel’naya politika. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 121–134.

13. Karakas C. (2018). Horizon Europe. Framework programme for research and innovation 2021–2027. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/628254/EPRS_BRI(2018)628254 _EN.pdf (дата обращения 06.02.2019).

14. Kitova G.A. (2015). Nalogovoe stimulirovanie nauki i innovatsij v Rossii: praktika i issledovaniya [Tax incentives for science and innovation in Russia: practice and studies]. Moscow: HSE, 80 p.

15. Klochikhin E. (2013). Nauchnaya i Innovatsionnaya Politika Kitaya [Scientific and Innovation Policy of China]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 11. No. 2(33). P. 37–55.

16. Lee H., Park Y., Choi H. (2009). Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research. Vol. 196. P. 847–855.

17. Lester J., Warda J. (2018). An international comparison of tax assistance for R&D: 2017 update and extension to patent boxes. SPP Research Paper. Vol. 11:13. The School of Public Policy Publications. University of Calgary. 35 p.

18. Link A. (2011). Public/Private Partnerships in the United States. Industry and Innovation. Vol. 6(2). P. 191–217.

19. National Research Council. (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 526 p.

20. National Science Board. (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. 1060 p. URL: https://www. nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf (accessed 14.09.2018).

21. OECD. (2016a). Review of national R&D tax incentives and estimates of R&D tax subsidy rates. OECD. 54 p. URL: http://www.oecd.org/sti/RDTaxIncentives­DesignSubsidyRates.pdf (accessed 14.09.2018).

22. OECD. (2016b). Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. OECD Publishing. Paris. 196 p.

23. OECD. (2017). Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2017: An OECD Scoreboard. OECD Publishing, Paris. 217 p.

24. Reillon V. (2015). Horizon 2020 budget and implementation A guide to the structure of the programme. European Parliamentary Research Service. In­depth analysis. 38 p. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/571312/EPRS_IDA%282015%29571312_EN.pdf (accessed 14.09.2018).

25. Reillon V. (2016). Public-public partnerships in research. The joint programming process. European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing. 8 p. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593474/EPRS_BRI%282016%29593474_EN.pdf (accessed 14.09.2018).

26. Reillon V. (2017). EU framework programmes for research and innovation. Evolution and key data from FP1 to Horizon 2020 in view of FP9. European Parliamentary Research Service. In­depth analysis. 38 p. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2017) 608697 (accessed 14.09.2018).

27. Shapira P., Youtie J. (2010). The Innovation System and Innovation Policy in the United States In: Frietsch R., Schüller M. (eds) Competing for Global Innovation Leadership: Innovation Systems and Policies in the USA, EU and Asia. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag. P. 5–29.

28. Talagaeva D. (2017). Evropejskoe nauchnoe soobschestvo kak politicheskij subject [European Scientific Community as a Political Actor: Historical Evolution and Institutional Foundations] Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 15. No. 2(49). P. 133–149.