Search

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the controversial issue of regional development incentives. Although extensive research has been conducted, a review of the literature gives an inconclusive answer to whether economic incentives are effective. Why do researchers arrive at different conclusions, even after analysing the same programmes? Among the problems that we find, for example, is the fact that for some researchers ‘effective’ means the significant location of new firms in targeted areas, while for others the creation of jobs regardless of whether new firms are arriving in a significant fashion. Furthermore, as we elaborate, the selection of an econometric model will have a significant impact on expected results. Different models, with different limitations, will lead researchers to evaluate the same incentive programme but arrive at different conclusions regarding its effectiveness. The contribution of the paper is to inform policymakers about the potential opportunities and pitfalls when designing incentive strategies. This is particularly relevant, given that both the US and Europe have been promoting incentives as a tool for regional economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its presumed role as an engine of economic growth, we know surprisingly little about the drivers of scientific creativity. We exploit key differences across funding streams within the academic life sciences to estimate the impact of incentives on the rate and direction of scientific exploration. Specifically, we study the careers of investigators of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), which tolerates early failure, rewards long-term success, and gives its appointees great freedom to experiment, and grantees from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who are subject to short review cycles, predefined deliverables, and renewal policies unforgiving of failure. Using a combination of propensity-score weighting and difference-in-differences estimation strategies, we find that HHMI investigators produce high-impact articles at a much higher rate than a control group of similarly accomplished NIH-funded scientists. Moreover, the direction of their research changes in ways that suggest the program induces them to explore novel lines of inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]