English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Ever since Solow’s (1957) pioneering work, it has been widely acknowledged that research and development (R&D) and technological innovation are key drivers of economic growth and national competitiveness (Coe and Helpman 1995). However, it is also commonly agreed that the market will fail to invest sufficiently in R&D if it creates non-rival and non-excludable outcomes—that is, if the outcomes are ‘public goods’. Private firms are afraid of having limited capacity to capture the returns from their R&D activities. As a result, the allocation of financial resources to R&D is likely to be at a suboptimal level, as R&D can yield positive spillover effects to the relevant industry or even to society more broadly. Scholars argue that, in addition to direct public R&D where spillover effects are greatest (e.g. from ‘basic’ research), governments should use various policy tools to provide incentives for firms to expand their R&D spending—for example, strengthening the

Timely help or icing the cake? Revisiting the effect of public subsidies on private R&D investment in Taiwan