Evaluating the effectiveness of policies to support knowledge-based companies in Iran: an Ex-post Evaluation Based on Objective Data

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Innovation policy and Future studies department, Technology Studies Institute

2 Research Assistant, Innovation policy and Future studies department, Technology Studies Institute

Abstract

The policy cycle is not complete without policy evaluation. It has been more than eight years since the implementation of “knowledge-based companies supporting law”, and it is time to evaluate the outcomes and achievements of these policies. Due to the lack of clear indicators for this evaluation, this study tries to develop a set of related indicators by studying the theoretical foundations, experiences of other countries and holding some expert panels. Then, after collecting and preparing data, some of the most important indicators were calculated and the effectiveness of the programs was evaluated. In other words, this study is an ex-post effectiveness assessment based on the collection and analysis of objective data from sources such as corporate tax returns, knowledge-based companies database, evaluation reports of agents of the Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology and the Real Estate Registration Organization of Iran database; So has avoided subjective judgments. Most of the data used in this paper were related to the years 1393 to 1396. The indicators have been calculated in different ways for consecutive years as much as possible to provide more comparability. The results show that policy tools to facilitate customs affairs have the most effect, and tools aimed at human resources and establishing accounting procedures have the least effect. It is difficult to monitor the effect of tax policies on increasing R&D activities, but they had a significant effect on reducing corporate costs compared to other tax exemptions.

Keywords


1- سرکیسیان، آ. (۱۳۸۴). سیاست تکنولوژی: اصول و مفاهیم: نشر مرکز صنایع نوین.
2- سلطانی، ع. م.، و طباطبائیان، س. ح. ا. (۱۳۹۸). ارزیابی سیاست‌های علم، فناوری و نوآوری. سیاست علم و فناوری، 11(2)، 561-578.
3- طباطبائیان، س. ح. ا.، فاتح راد، م.، شجاعی، س. م.، و سلطان‌زاده، ج. (۱۳۹۱). ارزیابی سیاست‌های علم، فناوری و نوآوری تهران: مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
4- قاضی‌نوری، س. س.، و قاضی‌نوری، س. س. (۱۳۹۲). مقدمه‌ای بر سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
5- گودرزی، م.، رضاعلیزاده، ح.، غریبی، ج.، و محسنی، م. (۱۳۹۳). آسیب‌شناسی سیاست‌های علم و فناوری در ایران: تحلیلی بر برنامه‌های پنج ساله توسعه. فصلنامه مدیریت توسعه فناوری، 2(3)، 137-161.
6- محسنی کیاسری، م.، محمدی، م.، جعفر نژاد، ا.، مختارزاده، ن.، و اسدی فرد، ر. (۱۳۹۷). دسته‌بندی ابزارهای سیاست نوآوری تقاضامحور با استفاده از رویکرد فراترکیب. مدیریت نوآوری، 6(2)، 109-138.
7- نصیری، ح.، و ردائی، ن. (۱۳۹۸). دسته‌بندی و انتخاب ابزارهای سیاستی علم، فناوری و نوآوری. سیاست علم و فناوری، 11(2)، 495-511.
8- Alic, J. A. (1999). Technology Policies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Taxonomy. Retrieved from Washington, DC:
9- Alkin, M. C. (2004). Evaluation roots: Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
10- Anderson, J. E. (2011). Public policymaking (7th ed.): Cengage Learning.
11- Archibald, R. B., & Finifter, D. H. (2003). Evaluating the NASA small business innovation research program: preliminary evidence of a trade-off between commercialization and basic research. Research policy, 32(4), 605-619.
12- Audretsch, D. B., Weigand, J., & Weigand, C. (2000). Does the small business innovation research program foster entrepreneurial behavior? Evidence from Indiana. In C. W. Wessner (Ed.), The Small Business Innovation Research Program (pp. 160-193): National Academies Press.
13- Bikar, V., Bruneel, J., Capron, H., Cincera, M., Clarysse, B., Meeusen, W., . . . Stavrevska, V. (2005). Implementing an integrated evaluation scheme of the institutional set-up through the generation of new S&T indicators. Retrieved from
14- Chen, C.-J., Wu, H.-L., & Lin, B.-W. (2006). Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan's science park. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4), 452-465.
15- Clarke, A. (1999). Evaluation research: An introduction to principles, methods and practice: Sage.
16- Czarnitzki, D., & Lopes-Bento, C. (2013). Value for money? New microeconometric evidence on public R&D grants in Flanders. Research policy, 42(1), 76-89.
17- Edler, J. (2010). Demand-Based Innovation Policy. In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: Edward Elgar Publishing.
18- Edler, J., Cunningham, P., & Gök, A. (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19- Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research policy, 41(10), 1757-1769.
20- Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action: Taylor & Francis.
21- European Commission. (2017). Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020. Retrieved from Brussels:
22- Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Pinter Publishers.
23- Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models: John Wiley & Sons.
24- Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research policy, 31(6), 899-933.
25- Garcia, A., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Impact of government support on R&D and innovation (1871-9872). Retrieved from Maastricht:
26- Gaster, R. (2017). Impacts of the SBIR/STTR Programs: Summary and Analysis. Retrieved from
27- Ghazinoory, S., Amiri, M., Ghazinoori, S., & Alizadeh, P. (2019). Designing innovation policy mix: a multi-objective decision-making approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(4), 365-385.
28- Ghazinoory, S., Mirzaei, S., & Ghazinoori, S. (2009). A model for national planning under new roles for government: Case study of the National Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative. Science and Public Policy, 36(3), 241-249.
29- Goodarzi, M., Rezaalizadeh, H., & Gharibi, J. (2017). Science, Technology, Innovation Laws, and Policies in Iran: Evolution or Revolution? In The Development of Science and Technology in Iran (pp. 11-27): Springer.
30- Grilo, A., & Santos, J. (2015). Measuring efficiency and productivity growth of new technology-based firms in business incubators: the Portuguese case study of Madan Parque. The Scientific World Journal, 2015.
31- Hall, B. H. (2002). The financing of research and development. Oxford review of economic policy, 18(1), 35-51.
32- Hall, B. H., & Lerner, J. (2010). The financing of R&D and innovation. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 609-639): Elsevier.
33- Huergo, E., & Moreno, L. (2017). Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R&D support programmes. Research policy, 46(7), 1198-1214.
34- Inoue, H., & Yamaguchi, E. (2017). Evaluation of the small business innovation research program in Japan. SAGE Open, 7(1), 2158244017690791.
35- International Organization for Standardization. (2015). Systems and software engineering- System life cycle processes (ISO/IEC/IEEE Standard No. 15288:2015). In.
36- Lerner, J. (1996). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run effects of the SBIR program (0898-2937). Retrieved from
37- Lerner, J. (2000). The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR program. The Journal of Private Equity, 3(2), 55-78.
38- Lerner, J., & Kegler, C. (2000). Evaluating the small business innovation research program: A literature review. In The small business innovation research program: An assessment of the department of defense fast track initiative (pp. 307-324): National Academies Press.
39- Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research policy, 39(5), 589-601.
40- Liu, R., & Rammer, C. (2016). The contribution of different public innovation funding programs to SMEs’ export performance. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 16-078.
41- Lu, Y.-H., Shen, C.-C., Ting, C.-T., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). Research and development in productivity measurement: An empirical investigation of the high technology industry. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), 2871-2884.
42- Lundström, A., & Stevenson, L. (2002). On the road to entrepreneurship policy: Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research [Forum för småföretagsforskning].
43- Lundvall, B.-Å. (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning: Anthem press.
44- Miles, I., Cunningham, P., Cox, D., & Malik, K. (2006). Smart Innovation: A practical guide to evaluating innovation programmes. Retrieved from Brussels-Luxembourg:
45- Monck, C. S. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms: Croom Helm.
46- NASEM. (2016). STTR: An Assessment of the Small Business Technology Transfer Program (030937961X). Retrieved from
47- National Research Council. (2009). An assessment of the SBIR Program (0309110866). Retrieved from
48- Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation. John Wiley & Sons.
49- NONIE. (2008). Impact Evaluation Guidance. : . Retrieved from Washington DC:
50- Oakey, R. P. (2013). Open innovation and its relevance to industrial research and development: The case of high-technology small firms. International Small Business Journal, 31(3), 319-336.
51- OECD. (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy. Retrieved from Paris:
52- Reid, A., Kamburow, T., Cunningham, P., Edler, J., & Simmonds, P. (2012). Evaluation of Innovation Activities Guidance on methods and practices. Retrieved from Belgium:
53- Siegel, D. S., Wessner, C., Binks, M., & Lockett, A. (2003). Policies promoting innovation in small firms: Evidence from the US and UK. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 121-127.
54- Soete, L., O’Doherty, D., Arnold, E., Bounfour, A., Fagerberg, J., & FarinelloU, S. G. (2002). Benchmarking national research policies: the impact of RTD on competitiveness and employment (IRCE). Retrieved from Brussels:
55- Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). Foundational models for 21st century program evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 33-83): Springer.
56- Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82-100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601030
57- Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of business venturing, 21(4), 541-567.