Appendix F: The Grant Impact for SBIR Mills

Similar documents
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Computational and Applied Sciences (IJETCAS)

Appendix for. Institutions and Behavior: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Democracy

Parameter Estimates of a Random Regression Test Day Model for First Three Lactation Somatic Cell Scores

HIV/AIDS-related Expectations and Risky Sexual Behavior in Malawi

HIV/AIDS-related Expectations and Risky Sexual Behavior in Malawi

The Importance of Being Marginal: Gender Differences in Generosity 1

Modeling Multi Layer Feed-forward Neural. Network Model on the Influence of Hypertension. and Diabetes Mellitus on Family History of

Working Paper Asymmetric Price Responses of Gasoline Stations: Evidence for Heterogeneity of Retailers

Are National School Lunch Program Participants More Likely to be Obese? Dealing with Identification

Richard Williams Notre Dame Sociology Meetings of the European Survey Research Association Ljubljana,

Price linkages in value chains: methodology

Copy Number Variation Methods and Data

Incorrect Beliefs. Overconfidence. Types of Overconfidence. Outline. Overprecision 4/22/2015. Econ 1820: Behavioral Economics Mark Dean Spring 2015

Using the Perpendicular Distance to the Nearest Fracture as a Proxy for Conventional Fracture Spacing Measures

A comparison of statistical methods in interrupted time series analysis to estimate an intervention effect

PSI Tuberculosis Health Impact Estimation Model. Warren Stevens and David Jeffries Research & Metrics, Population Services International

WHO S ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE: RATING THE RANKINGS

Does reporting heterogeneity bias the measurement of health disparities?

INITIAL ANALYSIS OF AWS-OBSERVED TEMPERATURE

Validation of the Gravity Model in Predicting the Global Spread of Influenza

Are Drinkers Prone to Engage in Risky Sexual Behaviors?

A GEOGRAPHICAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF LEUKEMIA DEATHS RELATING TO NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. Whitney Thompson, Sarah McGinnis, Darius McDaniel,

Testing the Fetal Origins Hypothesis in a Developing Country: Evidence from the 1918 Influenza Pandemic

Using Past Queries for Resource Selection in Distributed Information Retrieval

Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions

A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Education on Social Capital

The Effect of Fish Farmers Association on Technical Efficiency: An Application of Propensity Score Matching Analysis

THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION AND Z-SCORES COMMON CORE ALGEBRA II

The Marginal Income Effect of Education on Happiness: Estimating the Direct and Indirect Effects of Compulsory Schooling on Well-Being in Australia

Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preference methods

Stephanie von Hinke Kessler Scholder, George Davey Smith, Debbie A. Lawlor, Carol Propper, Frank Windmeijer

FORGONE EARNINGS FROM SMOKING: EVIDENCE FOR A DEVELOPING COUNTRY

TOPICS IN HEALTH ECONOMETRICS

Unobserved Heterogeneity and the Statistical Analysis of Highway Accident Data

Working Paper Series FSWP Ming-Feng Hsieh University of Wisconsin-Madison. Paul D. Mitchell University of Wisconsin-Madison

Desperation or Desire? The Role of Risk Aversion in Marriage. Christy Spivey, Ph.D. * forthcoming, Economic Inquiry. Abstract

Discussion Papers In Economics And Business

Biased Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution: Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Evaluation of two release operations at Bonneville Dam on the smolt-to-adult survival of Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery fall Chinook salmon

Joint Modelling Approaches in diabetes research. Francisco Gude Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago

Rich and Powerful? Subjective Power and Welfare in Russia

Ghebreegziabiher Debrezion Eric Pels Piet Rietveld

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PERSONALIZED MEDICINE WHEN PHYSICIANS INDUCE DEMAND. David H. Howard Jason Hockenberry Guy David

Rich and Powerful? Subjective Power and Welfare in Russia

Balanced Query Methods for Improving OCR-Based Retrieval

What Determines Attitude Improvements? Does Religiosity Help?

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE IMPACT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EXPANSION ON PHYSICIAN TREATMENT CHOICE: MEDICARE PART D AND PHYSICIAN PRESCRIBING

Statistical models for predicting number of involved nodes in breast cancer patients

Partially WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS: ''' ~ A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND A SURVEY OF WORKSITES

An Introduction to Modern Measurement Theory

Relevance of statistical techniques when using administrative health data: gender inequality in mortality from cardio-vascular disease

The Limits of Individual Identification from Sample Allele Frequencies: Theory and Statistical Analysis

NUMERICAL COMPARISONS OF BIOASSAY METHODS IN ESTIMATING LC50 TIANHONG ZHOU

Association between cholesterol and cardiac parameters.

Does Context Matter More for Hypothetical Than for Actual Contributions?

Ignácio Tavares de Araújo Júnior Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Economia /PPGE, UFPB

HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY IN SOUTH AFRICA: A BAYESIAN ESTIMATION OF SELECTION MODELS WITH CORRELATED FIXED-EFFECTS

IV Estimation. Dr. Alexander Spermann. Summer Term 2012

CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS IN RUSSIA: ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL ISSUE?

The Impact of Private Sector Provision of Home-Based Services for Older People in Beijing

J. H. Rohrer, S. H. Baron, E. L. Hoffman, D. V. Swander

Modeling the Survival of Retrospective Clinical Data from Prostate Cancer Patients in Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Ghana

Recent Trends in U.S. Breast Cancer Incidence, Survival, and Mortality Rates

Comparison of methods for modelling a count outcome with excess zeros: an application to Activities of Daily Living (ADL-s)

Impact of Imputation of Missing Data on Estimation of Survival Rates: An Example in Breast Cancer

UNIVERISTY OF KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS, STATISTICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE

Drug Prescription Behavior and Decision Support Systems

310 Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. PDPTA'16

Estimating the distribution of the window period for recent HIV infections: A comparison of statistical methods

Economic crisis and follow-up of the conditions that define metabolic syndrome in a cohort of Catalonia,

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NH DHHS HEALTH ALERT

Birol, Ekin; Asare-Marfo, Dorene; Ayele, Gezahegn; Mensa-Bonsu, Akwasi; Ndirangu, Lydia; Okpukpara, Benjamin; Roy, Devesh; and Yakhshilikov, Yorbol

N-back Training Task Performance: Analysis and Model

Prediction of Total Pressure Drop in Stenotic Coronary Arteries with Their Geometric Parameters

ALMALAUREA WORKING PAPERS no. 9

The effect of salvage therapy on survival in a longitudinal study with treatment by indication

A MIXTURE OF EXPERTS FOR CATARACT DIAGNOSIS IN HOSPITAL SCREENING DATA

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Adult Obesity Prevalence in South Africa: A Decomposition Analysis

Strong, Bold, and Kind: Self-Control and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas

The Reliability of Subjective Well-Being Measures

Latent Class Analysis for Marketing Scales Development

Human development is deeply embedded in social

THE NATURAL HISTORY AND THE EFFECT OF PIVMECILLINAM IN LOWER URINARY TRACT INFECTION.

Applying Multinomial Logit Model for Determining Socio- Economic Factors Affecting Major Choice of Consumers in Food Purchasing: The Case of Mashhad

RENAL FUNCTION AND ACE INHIBITORS IN RENAL ARTERY STENOSISA/adbon et al. 651

PREDICTING CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM IN PAROLED QUEENSLAND PRISONERS: FINDINGS FROM A MULTINOMIAL ORDERED PROBIT MODEL

Sequential meta-analysis to determine whether or not to start another trial: the high frequency versus conventional mechanical ventilation example

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF BIOMARKER IDENTIFICATION USING BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

ESTIMATING WHOLESALE DEMAND FOR LIVE REEF FOOD FISH IN HONG KONG

Volume 30, Issue 1. International Capital Mobility in African Countries: Do the legal origins matter?

An Improved Time Domain Pitch Detection Algorithm for Pathological Voice

Saeed Ghanbari, Seyyed Mohammad Taghi Ayatollahi*, Najaf Zare

Risk Misperception and Selection in Insurance Markets: An Application to Demand for Cancer Insurance

HERMAN AGUINIS University of Colorado at Denver. SCOTT A. PETERSEN U.S. Military Academy at West Point. CHARLES A. PIERCE Montana State University

I T L S. WORKING PAPER ITLS-WP Social exclusion and the value of mobility. INSTITUTE of TRANSPORT and LOGISTICS STUDIES

Rainbow trout survival and capture probabilities in the upper Rangitikei River, New Zealand

Can Subjective Questions on Economic Welfare Be Trusted?

Estimation Comparison of Multidimensional Reliability Coefficients Measurement of Senior High School Students Affection towards Mathematics

Multidimensional Reliability of Instrument for Measuring Students Attitudes Toward Statistics by Using Semantic Differential Scale

Encoding processes, in memory scanning tasks

Transcription:

Appendx F: The Grant Impact for SBIR Mlls Asmallsubsetofthefrmsnmydataapplymorethanonce.Ofthe7,436applcant frms, 71% appled only once, and a further 14% appled twce. Wthn my data, seven companes each submtted more than 50 applcatons. Fgure 1 shows the frequency of frms by ther number of awards, omttng frms wth less than four awards. These companes who wn many SBIR awards, sometmes termed SBIR mlls, have rased concerns snce the early years of the SBIR program (GAO 1992, Wallsten 2000). Appendx G Table 1 shows the relatonshp between applcant rank and prevous non-doe SBIR wns. DOE program offcals appear to be rankng frms hgher that have more prevous wns from other agences. Frms wth more prevous wns are lkely more sklled applers. They have more applcaton experence and may dedcate more resources to accessng government fundng. Implcatons for frms wth a few awards may be more ambguous. For example, Osclla Power (ntroduced n the man text) had two Phase 1 SBIRs from other agences pror to applyng for ts DOE SBIR. For Osclla, all three Phase 1 s funded useful testng work. These frms, often employng specalzed grant applcaton staff, seem unlkely canddates for venture fnance. Ineed, I fnd evdence of decreasng returns to prevous non-doe SBIR awards. Table 1 fnds that among frms wth no prevous SBIRs, an award ncreases a frm s probablty of subsequent VC nvestment by 14.8 pp, sgnfcant at the 1% level. For frms wth at least one prevous SBIR, the effect s halved to 7.5 pp, also sgnfcant at the 1% level. However, the dfference betwen these coeffcents s nsgnfcant. The left panel of Table 2 nteracts treatment wth prevous awards and fnds negatve coeffcents, although n two of the three models they are sgnfcant only at the 10% level. The mprecson could be due to opposng forces: addtonal SBIRs may produce valuable prototypng, but a sgnfcant porton of frms wth prevous SBIRs are mlls and not seekng prvate fnance. When a frm has just one prevous non-doe SBIR award, the Phase 1 mpact on reachng revenue drops precptously - even more so than wth fnancng. Table 2 (rght panel) nteracts treatment wth prevous awards and fnds strong and hghly sgnfcant negatve effects. Table 3 shows that among frms wth no prevous SBIR wns, a grantee s 19 pp more lkely to reach revenue than a loser (column I), sgnfcant at the 1% level. When regressons usng zero and postve SBIR wns are estmated jontly, the dfference n the coeffcents s 14.7 pp, sgnfcant at the 1% level (column III). The effect declnes further along the ntensve margn. Table 4 shows that there may be a smlar precptous Appendx F 1

drop for patents by prevous SBIR wns, but the coeffcents are much more mprecse. Ths SBIR mll effect accords wth Lnk and Scott s (2010) concluson that mlls are less lkely to commercalze ther projects, and wth Lerner (1999) s fndng that multple awards are not assocated wth ncreased performance for SBIR awardees. Fgure 1: Appendx F 2

Table 1: Impact of Grant on Subsequent VC by Number of Frm s Prevous SBIR Awards Dependent Varable: VC Post ; I. =0 II. > 0 III. Dff I &II IV. < 5 V. 5 VI. Dff IV & V 1 R > 0 0.148*** 0.0748*** 0.0746*** 0.0872*** 0.0601 0.0601 (0.0380) (0.0260) (0.0263) (0.0247) (0.0385) (0.0371) VC Prev 0.298*** 0.359*** 0.358*** 0.360*** 0.333*** 0.333*** (0.0630) (0.0506) (0.0512) (0.0473) (0.0626) (0.0603) 0.000166 0.000177* 0.00555*** 0.000145 0.000145 (0.000102) (0.000103) (0.00162) (0.000115) (0.000111) 1 R > 0.0724 0.0270 0 1 apple X VC Prev 1 #SBIR Prev 1 1 apple X (0.0452) (0.0449) -0.0598 0.0267 apple X (0.0823) (0.0777) 0.00541*** apple X (0.00166) -0.0749*** 0.136*** (0.0175) (0.0151) Topc f.e. Y Y Y Y Y Y Topc f.e. 1 apple X N N Y N N Y N 1099 1615 2714 1654 1060 2714 R 2 0.395 0.294 0.335 0.373 0.336 0.367 Note: Ths table s an RD estmatng va OLS the mpact of the Phase 1 grant (1 R > 0) onsubsequent VC by number of prevous non-doe SBIR awards (from other gov t agences, e.g. DOD, NSF), usng BW=3. Each column ncludes only data from frms wth the relevant number of wns. In the dfference regressons (columns V-VI), all covarates are nteracted wth a dummy for low SBIRs. Column VI only ncludes frms wth 0 or at least 5 SBIRs. The coeffcents on (1 R > 0 )donotprecselymatchcolumns III-IV because SBIRs are not controlled for n column I (there are none). Topc dummes permt suffcent wthn-group observatons. Standard errors robust and clustered at topc-year level. *** p<.01. Year 1995 Appendx F 3

Table 2: Impact of Grant on VC & Reachng Revenue Interacted wth Number of Frm s Prevous SBIR Awards Dependent Varable: VC Post Revenue I. BW=2 II. BW=3 III. BW=all IV. BW=2 V. BW=3 VI. BW=all (1 R > 0) -0.0408* -0.0359* -0.0411** -0.0779*** -0.0843*** -0.0865*** #SBIR_d Prev (0.0232) (0.0202) (0.0170) (0.0234) (0.0219) (0.0179) 1 R > 0 0.121*** 0.131*** 0.146*** 0.120*** 0.128*** 0.158*** (0.0187) (0.0177) (0.0160) (0.0204) (0.0189) (0.0161) #SBIR_d Prev 0.0633*** 0.0651*** 0.0700*** 0.00544 0.00965 0.00953 (0.0179) (0.0163) (0.0125) (0.0199) (0.0187) (0.0153) Competton f.e. Y Y Y Y Y Y N 3916 4572 7332 3916 4572 7332 R 2 0.285 0.252 0.181 0.262 0.227 0.158 Note: Ths table s an RD estmatng va OLS the mpact of the Phase 1 grant (1 R > 0) onreachng revenue by number of prevous non-doe SBIR awards (from other government agences, e.g. DOD, NSF) usng BW=1. Here the varable has been demeaned and dvded by 100 for clarty. Standard errors robust and clustered at topc-year level. *** p<.01. Year 1995 Appendx F 4

Table 3: Impact of Grant on Reachng Revenue by Number of Frm s Prevous SBIR Awards Dependent Varable: Revenue I. =0 II. > 0 III. Dff I & II 1 R > 0 0.190*** 0.0448 0.0446 (0.0445) (0.0272) (0.0275) VC Prev 0.289*** 0.0986** 0.0973** (0.0571) (0.0428) (0.0432) -0.000475*** -0.000463*** (0.0000824) (0.0000840) 1 R > 0 1 0.147*** apple X (0.0535) Topc f.e. Y Y Y Topc f.e. 1 N N Y apple X N 1099 1615 2714 R 2 0.327 0.238 0.294 Note: Ths table s an RD estmatng va OLS the mpact of the Phase 1 grant (1 R > 0) onreachng revenue by number of prevous non-doe SBIR awards (from other government agences, e.g. DOD, NSF) usng BW=1. Each column ncludes only data from frms wth the relevant number of wns. To estmate the dfference regressons, all covarates are nteracted wth a dummy that, for example n Column VIII, takes a value of 1 f the frm has 0 SBIR wns, and 0 f at least 5. The coeffcents on treatment (1 R > 0 )n columns VII and VIII do not precsely match because I do not control for prevous SBIRs when there are none (column I). Coeffcents on VC Prev 1 apple X, 1 apple X and 1 apple X not reported for space concerns. Standard errors robust and clustered at topc-year level. *** p<.01. Year 1995 Appendx F 5

Table 4: Impact of Phase 1 Grant on Subsequent Patentng wthn 3 Years by Number of Frm s Prevous SBIR Awards (All Gov t) (Negatve Bnomal) Dependent Varable: #Patent 3yrsPost #SBIR < 2 < 5 > 0 2 5 I. II. III. IV. V. 1 R > 0 0.896* 0.805* -0.405 0.120-0.257 (0.531) (0.481) (0.369) (0.444) (0.576) #Patent Prev 0.479*** 0.451*** 0.183*** 0.158*** 0.145*** (0.0506) (0.0452) (0.0201) (0.0196) (0.0204) VC Prev 1.210*** 1.062*** 0.544*** 0.647*** 0.737*** (0.251) (0.238) (0.170) (0.170) (0.191) 0.0330 0.0438*** 0.00586*** 0.00503*** 0.00479*** (0.0242) (0.0118) (0.000827) (0.000770) (0.000738) R, 0.176*** 0.157*** 0.0949** 0.0305 0.0444 (0.0608) (0.0567) (0.0476) (0.0493) (0.0519) R,+ 0.913* 0.854* 0.827*** 0.460 0.339 (0.483) (0.441) (0.298) (0.385) (0.569) R, 2 0.00717** 0.00581* 0.00287-0.00275-0.00148 (0.00358) (0.00347) (0.00324) (0.00318) (0.00336) R,+ 2-0.184** -0.137-0.0602-0.0120 0.0130 (0.0922) (0.0835) (0.0372) (0.0490) (0.0733) Year f.e. Y Y Y Y Y N 4249 4651 1879 1444 1042 Pseudo-R 2 0.097 0.098 0.093 0.096 0.101 Note: Ths table s an RD estmatng va a negatve bnomal model the mpact of the Phase 1 grant (1 R > 0) on the frm s patent count wthn three years after grant award by number of prevous non-doe SBIR awards (from other government agences, e.g. DOD, NSF), usng BW=all. Each column ncludes only data from frms wth the relevant number of wns. Unfortunately I could not estmate dfference equatons due to non-convergence of the Posson maxmum lkelhood. Standard errors robust and clustered at topc-year level. *** p<.01. Year 1995 Appendx F 6