In the attempt to boost innovation, policy-makers have enacted a myriad of programs targeting innovative start-ups in recent years. Empirical evidence on these initiatives has almost exclusively focused on national-level programs, overlooking those implemented at the local level. This paper provides the first quasi-experimental evidence on the joint effects of local policies focusing on Italy, where regional governments have been very active in providing financial support to these firms. By leveraging discontinuities in program design, we adopt a local randomization approach and document a null effect of these programs over a wide range of firm-level outcomes. However, we find that securing local subsidies increases start-ups’ probability to obtain additional public subsidies, which points in the direction of a vicious “Matthew effect” in subsidy allocation. Consistent with a reputation/certification mechanism, the increase in follow-on subsidies occurs for funds disbursed at the local level only, whereas no effect is detected for subsidies allocated by national or international authorities.

The paper examines whether competitive R&D grants incentivize private firms to pursue innovation in unexplored directions or more conventional ones. We use applicant-level data from the largest European program awarding R&D grants to individual small and medium-sized enterprises. We find that having unconventional patents before the program or submitting an atypical proposal does not affect ranking or the likelihood of winning, thus yielding no evidence of systematic bias against novelty in grant allocation. We then exploit the discontinuity in the program design to infer the effects of grants and find that: i) they induce firms to innovate in domains that are new and distant from their past technological trajectories; ii) they increase the likelihood of introducing unconventional patents without increasing the chances of filing conventional ones. These results are driven by firms that are cash-constrained, which is consistent with the idea that financial frictions hinder more risky and experimental research endeavors.

Policy-makers and scholars often assume that a higher incidence of high-growth firms (HGFs) is synonymous with vibrant regional economic dynamics, and that HGF shares are persistent over time as Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs) have slowly-changing features. In this paper we test these hypotheses, which are deeply rooted in the EE literature. We draw upon Eurostat data for up to 20 countries over the period 2008-2020 and study HGF shares in NUTS-3 regions in Europe. Analysis of regional rankings yields the puzzling finding that the leading EEs in Europe, apparently, are in places such as southern Spain and southern Italy. These places would not normally be considered Europe’s foremost entrepreneurial hotspots. Additional results do not provide strong support for the hypothesis that more developed regions feature higher HGF shares. We do find evidence consistent with HGF shares displaying persistency over time. However, we show that more developed regions do not have higher persistence in their HGF shares, and that the strength in persistence does not increase across the HGFs distribution, which does not support path-dependency as the main mechanism behind the observed persistence. Overall, we call for a more nuanced interpretation of both regional HGF shares and the EEs literature.