SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 85

Analysis of the Impact of TUBITAK Direct Supports for R&D and Innovation Activities on Sectoral Profitability with Heckman Selection Model

AR-GE ve Yenilik Faaliyetlerine Yönelik TÜBİTAK Desteklerinin Sektörel Kârlılık Üzerindeki Etkisinin Heckman Seçim Modeli ile Analizi

Ebru Yalçın(KÜTAHYA DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, MALİYE BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-9904-8001
Alparslan Abdurrahman Başaran(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, MALİYE BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-1027-8375
Pages
406–425
Publication Date
2025-07-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings show that incentives have an impact on profitability and that a “cherry-picking” strategy is adopted.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Governments utilise various policy instruments to stimulate R&D and innovation activities, which are essential for increasing competitiveness and economic growth.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to achieve the goal of technology-driven growth in Turkey, TUBITAK has been providing increasing amounts of direct supports to companies over the years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings show that incentives have an impact on profitability and that a “cherry-picking” strategy is adopted.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ar-Ge · Teşvik · TÜBİTAK

Abstract

Governments utilise various policy instruments to stimulate R&D and innovation activities, which are essential for increasing competitiveness and economic growth. In order to achieve the goal of technology-driven growth in Turkey, TUBITAK has been providing increasing amounts of direct supports to companies over the years. The fact that the amount and beneficiaries of these supports are determined by public institutions causes selection bias. In this study, the impact of direct supports on sectoral profitability is analysed using the Heckman Selection Model, which allows the impact of policy priorities and selection criteria in the incentive process to be taken into account. The findings show that incentives have an impact on profitability and that a “cherry-picking” strategy is adopted.

Özet

Devletler rekabet gücünü ve ekonomik büyümeyi artırmak için vazgeçilmez bir öneme sahip olan Ar-Ge ve yenilik faaliyetlerini teşvik etmeye yönelik çeşitli politika araçlarından faydalanmaktadır. Türkiye’de de teknoloji odaklı büyüme hedefine ulaşmak için TÜBİTAK tarafından firmalara yıllar itibariyle artan miktarda doğrudan destekler sunulmaktadır. Bu desteklerin miktar ve yararlanıcılarının kamu kurumları tarafından belirleniyor olması ise seçim yanlılığına neden olmaktadır. Doğrudan desteklerin sektörel kârlılığa olan etkisinin analiz edildiği bu çalışmada, politik önceliklerin ve seçim kriterlerinin teşvik süreci üzerindeki etkisini analize dahil etmeyi mümkün kılan Heckman Seçim Modeli kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, teşviklerin kârlılık üzerinde etkisi olduğunu ve “kazananları seçme” stratejisinin benimsendiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yalçın, E., Başaran, A. A. (2025). Analysis of the Impact of TUBITAK Direct Supports for R&D and Innovation Activities on Sectoral Profitability with Heckman Selection Model. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 85, 406–425. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1688868

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (90)

  1. Aerts, K. ve Czarnitzki, D. (2004). Using innovation survey data to evaluate R&D policy: The case of Belgium. ZEW Discussion Papers (No. 04-55). ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  2. Aerts, K. ve Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(6-7), 806-822.
  3. Agrawal, A., Rosell, C. ve Simcoe, T. (2020). Tax credits and small firm R&D spending. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2), 1–21.
  4. Alam, A., Uddin, M. ve Yazdifar, H. (2019). Financing behaviour of R&D investment in the emerging markets: The role of alliance and financial system. R&D Management, 49(1), 21–32.
  5. Ali-Yrkkö, J. (2004). Impact of public R&D financing on private R&D: Does financial constraint matter?, ETLA Discussion Papers, No. 943, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), Helsinki
  6. Almus, M. ve Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The Effects of public R&D subsidies on firms' ınnovation activities: The Case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21(2),226-236.
  7. Aghion, P. ve Howitt, P. (1998). A Schumpeterian perspective on growth and competition. In Coricelli, F., Matteo, M.d., Hahn, F. (eds) New Theories in Growth and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-26270-0_2
  8. Amendola, A., Boccia, M., Mele, G. ve Sensini, L. (2018). Fiscal incentives and firm performance: Evidence from the Dominican Republic (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8382). SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3151180
  9. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The Economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. doi: 10.2307/2295952
  10. Banai, Á., Lang, P., Nagy, G. ve Stancsics, M. (2017). Impact evaluation of EU subsidies for economic development on the Hungarian SME sector (MNB Working Papers No. 2017/8). Magyar Nemzeti Bank (Central Bank of Hungary).
  11. Bayraktaroğlu, H., Karaman, D. ve Kalkan, A. (2015). Kobilere sağlanan teşviklerin firmaların ihracat performansına katkısı: Antalya Organize Sanayi Bölgesi’nde bir uygulama. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 15(31), 89-108.
  12. Bellak, C. ve Leibrecht, M. (2016). “The Use of Investment Incentives: The Cases of R&D-Related Incentives and International Investment Agreements.” In Rethinking Investment Incentives: Trends and Policy Options, edited by Ana Teresa Tavares-Lehmann, Perrine Toledano, Lise Johnson, and Lisa Sachs, Chapter 4. New York: Columbia University Press.
  13. Bölükbaş, N. S., Arslan, N. ve Polat, B. (2020). TÜBİTAK ve KOSGEB Ar-Ge Destekleri Etki Analizi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Anahtar Dergisi, Ağustos, 29–32.
  14. Bronzini, R. ve Piselli, P. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 442-457.
  15. Busom, I. (2000). An Empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9(2), 111–148. doi: 10.1080/10438590000000006
  16. Busom, I., Corchuelo, B. ve Martinez Ros, E. (2012). Tax incentives and direct support for R&D: What do firms use and why? (Working Paper No. wpdea1212). Department of Applied Economics, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
  17. Cerulli G. ve Poti, B. (2012) Evaluating the robustness of the effect of public subsidies on firms' R&D: An application to Italy. Journal of Applied Economics, 15(2), 287-320
  18. Cefis, E. ve Ciccarelli, M. (2005). Profit differentials and innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 14(1-2), 43-61.
  19. Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H.-S. ve Semadeni, M. (2015). Sample selection Bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2639–2657. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26155192
  20. Chen, L. ve Yang, W. (2019). R&D tax credits and firm innovation: Evidence from China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 233-241.
  21. Corchuelo, B. ve Martínez-Ros, E. (2009). The effects of fiscal incentives for R&D in Spain (DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics, WB wb092302).
  22. Czarnitzki, D. ve Hussinger, K. (2004). The Link between R&D Subsidies, R&D Spending and Technological Performance. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 04-056. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.575362
  23. Czarnitzki, D., Hanel, P. ve Rosa, J. M. (2011), Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation: A microeconometric study on Canadian firms, Research Policy, 40(2), 217-229
  24. Dai, X. ve Wang, M. (2024). Unintended effects of tax incentives on firms’ strategic patenting. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 219, 1-24.
  25. Damodaran, A. (1999). Research and development expenses: Implications for profitability measurement and valuation. NYU Working Paper No. FIN-99-024,
  26. Dustmann, C. ve Rochina-Barrachina, M. E. (2000). Selection correction in panel data models: An application to labour supply and wages (IZA Discussion Paper No. 162). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  27. Ertan, F. (2020). Teknoloji, inovasyon ve Ar-Ge’ye yönelik devlet politikaları ve TÜBİTAK tarafından verilen Ar-Ge desteklerinin firmalar üzerindeki etkisine yönelik analiz.[Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Maliye Ana Bilim Dalı. Ankara.
  28. Eurostat. (2024). R&D expenditure. Eurostat Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/1203.pdf
  29. Ezanoğlu, Z. ve Çetin, D. (2021). Türkiye’de Ar-Ge faaliyetlerini desteklemeye yönelik bir politika aracı olarak teşviklerin firma yenilik performansına etkileri. Maliye Dergisi, 181, 206-233.
  30. Fabling, R. (2008). Will a BERD model fly? Estimating aggregate R&D expenditure using a micro model. [Draft paper]. ESAM 08 Conference, Wellington.
  31. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  32. Guan, J. C. ve Yam, R. C. M. (2015). Effects of government financial incentives on firms’ innovation performance in China: Evidences from Beijing in the 1990s. Research Policy, 44(1), 273-282.
  33. Guo, D., Guo, Y. ve Jiang, K. (2016). Government-subsidized R&D and firm innovation: Evidence from Chin. Research Policy, No:45, 1129- 1144.
  34. Güçeri, I. ve Liu, L. (2015). Effectiveness of fiscal incentives for R&D: Quasi-experimental evidence. Working Papers 1512, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
  35. Gürbüz, M. K. (2018). An effective and efficient R&D funding mechanism: An evaluation study on prioritized R&D grant program (1003) of TUBITAK. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İktisat Ana Bilim Dalı. Ankara.
  36. Gómez-Prado, R., Alvarez-Risco, A., Cuya-Velásquez, B. B., Arias-Meza, M., Campos-Dávalos, N., Juarez-Rojas, L., Anderson-Seminario, M. d. l. M., Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S. ve Yáñez, J. A. (2023). Product ınnovation, market ıntelligence and pricing capability as a competitive advantage in the ınternational performance of startups: Case of Peru. Sustainability, 14, 10703. doi: 10.3390/su15118992
  37. Hu, A. G. Z. ve Yongxu, D. (2019). Does government R&D stimulate or crowd out firm R&D spending? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing industries. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 27(2), 497-518. doi: 10.1111/ecot.12167
  38. Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. In S. V. Berg (Ed.), Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 475–492. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10491
  39. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection Bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. doi: 10.2307/1912352
  40. Hussinger, K. (2008). R&D and subsidies at the firm level: An application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(6), 729–747. doi:10.1002/jae.1016
  41. Hottenrott, H. ve Lopes-Bento, C. (2014). (International) R&D collaboration and SMEs: The effectiveness of targeted public R&D support schemes. Research Policy, 43(6), 1055-1066.
  42. Hussen, M. S. (2022). Government financial ıncentive and firm performance: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Economics, Management and Accounting, 30(2), 259–283. doi: 10.31436/ijema.v30i2.818
  43. Jia, J. ve Ma, G. (2017). Do R&D tax incentives work? Firm-level evidence from China. China Economic Review, 46, 50-66.
  44. Jones, B. F., & Summers, L. H. (2020). A calculation of the social returns to innovation. (Working Paper No. 27863). (Working Paper No. 27863). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27863
  45. Kaiser, U. (2004). Private R&D and public subsidies: microeconomic evidence from Denmark. Center for Economic and Business Research, DP 2004-19.
  46. Khan, M. Y. ve Jain, P. K. (2018). Financial management: Text, problems and cases (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  47. Kahn, A., Kasongo, A., Sithole, M. M. ve Ramoroka, K. H. (2024). An analysis of the micro- and macro-economic determinants of firm R&D intensity in the South African business sector. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 16(3), 297–308. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2023.2296653
  48. Kamu Gözetimi Kurumu. (2025). TMS 38 Maddi Olmayan Duran Varlıklar. Erişim adresi: https://www.kgk.gov.tr/Portalv2Uploads/files/DynamicContentFiles/Türkiye%20Muhasebe%20Standartları/TMSTFRS2018Seti/TMS/TMS_38_2018.pdf
  49. Köhler, C., Laredo, P. ve Rammer, C. (2012). The impact and effectiveness of fiscal incentives for R&D (Nesta Working Paper No. 12).
  50. Küçükbayrak, M. (2023). Kamu destek ve teşviklerinin firma performansına etkisi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 57(1), 45-72. doi: 10.51551/verimlilik.1039948
  51. Mairesse, J. ve Mohnen, P. (2001). To be or not to be innovative: An exercise in measurement (NBER Working Paper No. w8644). https://ssrn.com/abstract=294083
  52. Makeeva, E., Murashkina, I. ve Mikhaleva, I. (2019). The impact of R&D tax incentive programs on the performance of innovative companies. Foresight, 21(5),545–562. doi: 10.1108/FS-06-2018-0063
  53. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The Simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827448
  54. Nindl, E., Napolitano, L., Confraria, H., Rentocchini, F., Fako, P., Gavigan, J. ve Tübke, A. (2024). The 2024 EU industrial R&D ınvestment scoreboard, publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/0775231, JRC140129.
  55. OECD (2021), OECD Science, technology and innovation outlook 2021: Times of crisis and opportunity. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  56. OECD (2022). Are Industrial Policy Instruments Effective? A Review of the Evidence in OECD Countries. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 128. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/befc82fd-en
  57. OECD. (2024). Public support to R&D and innovation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/public-support-to-r&d-and-innovation.html
  58. Ogundimu, E.O. (2022). Regularization and variable selection in Heckman selection model. Stat Papers 63, 421–439. doi: 10.1007/s00362-021-01246-z
  59. On İkinci Kalkınma Planı (2024-2028). Karar No. 1396 Karar Tarihi: 31.10.2023
  60. Özçelik, E. ve Taymaz, E. (2008). R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience. Research Policy, 37(2), 258-275.
  61. Özkan, N. (2022). R&D spending and financial performance: An investigation in an emerging market. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 18(1), 38–58.
  62. Palikot, E. (2023). Competition–Innovation nexus: Product vs. process, does ıt matter? Econometrics, 11(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics11030021
  63. Parisi, M. L., Schiantarelli, F. ve Sembenelli, A. (2006). Productivity, innovation and R&D: Micro evidence for Italy. European Economic Review, 50, 2037-2061.
  64. Peçe, M. A. (2024). KOSGEB desteklerinin TR81 bölgesinde işletmelerin karlılıklarına etkisi: panel zaman serisi analizi. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 9(2), 69–75.
  65. Picas, S., Reis, P., Pinto, A. ve Abrantes, J. L. (2021). Does tax, financial, and government ıncentives ımpact long-term Portuguese SMEs’ sustainable company performance? Sustainability, 13(21), 11866. doi: 10.3390/su132111866
  66. Rakic, R. (2021). Fostering R&D intensity in the European Union: Policy experiences and lessons learned. Case study contribution to the OECD TIP project on
  67. R&D intensity. https://community.oecd.org/community/cstp/tip/rdintensity
  68. Rao, N. (2016). Do tax credits stimulate R&D spending? The effect of the R&D tax credit in its first decade. Journal of Public Economics,140,1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.05.003
  69. Ravšelj, D. ve Aristovnik, A. (2018). The Impact of private research and development expenditures and tax ıncentives on sustainable corporate growth in selected OECD countries. Sustainability, 10(7), 2304. doi: 10.3390/su10072304
  70. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
  71. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71-102.
  72. Schwartz, G. ve Clements, B. (1999). Government subsidies. Journal of Economic Surveys, 13(2), 119-148.
  73. Šeligová, M. (2016). The effects of R&D intensity and tax incentives on firms' growth of PIGS countries. European Financial and Accounting Journal, 2, 53-67.
  74. Sylwester, K. (2001). R&D and economic growth. Know Techn Pol. 13, 71–84. doi: 10.1007/BF02693991
  75. Stratejik Araştırmalar ve Verimlilik Genel Müdürlüğü. (2021). KOSGEB ve TÜBİTAK Ar-Ge Destekleri Etki Değerlendirmesi. T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı, Ankara.
  76. Stratejik Araştırmalar ve Verimlilik Genel Müdürlüğü. (2022). TÜBİTAK - 1512 Girişimcilik Destek Programı (BİGG) etki değerlendirmesi. T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı, Ankara.
  77. Şengül, S. (2021). Sınırlı bağımlı değişkenli modeller ve stata uygulamaları. Üçdoğruk Birecikli, Ş. & Şengül, S. (Eds.), Uygulamalarla ekonometri içinde (ss. 219-250). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  78. Takalo, T., Tanayama, T. ve Toivanen, O. (2013). Estimating the benefits of targeted R&D subsidies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 255–272.
  79. Tan, S. W., Tran, T. ve Koniewski, M. (2019). Return on ınvestment of public support to SMEs and innovation in Poland. World Bank.
  80. Tandoğan, V. S. (2011). Impact analysis of ındustrial research and development subsidy programs in Turkey: An Appraisal of Quantitative Approaches. METU.
  81. Taş, E. veErdil, E. (2024). Effectiveness of R&D tax ıncentives in Turkey. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5, 6226–6272. doi: /10.1007/s13132-023-01326-5
  82. TÜİK. (2024, Kasım 6). Araştırma-Geliştirme Faaliyetleri Araştırması, 2023. TÜİK.https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Arastirma-Gelistirme-Faaliyetleri-Arastirmasi-2023-53803
  83. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. (2008). Araştırma, Geliştirme ve Tasarım Faaliyetlerinin Desteklenmesi Hakkında Kanun (Kanun No. 5746). Resmî Gazete, 26814.
  84. Ulku, H. (2004). R&D, innovation, and economic growth: An empirical analysis. IMF Working Paper No. WP/04/185. International Monetary Fund.
  85. Wang, S., Ahmad, F., Li, Y., Abid, N., Chandio, A. A. ve Rehman, A. (2022). The Impact of industrial subsidies and enterprise ınnovation on enterprise performance: Evidence from listed Chinese manufacturing companies. Sustainability, 14(8), 4520. doi:10.3390/su14084520
  86. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. https://library.wbi.ac.id/repository/163.pdf
  87. Zhao, K., Wu, W. ve Ye, J. (2022). The impact of “Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation” policy on SMEs’ innovation: Using quasi-natural experiments. Bulletin of Economic Research. doi: 10.1111/boer.12359
  88. Bölükbaş, N. S., Arslan, N. ve Polat, B. (2020). TÜBİTAK ve KOSGEB Ar-Ge Destekleri Etki Analizi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Anahtar Dergisi, Ağustos, 29–32.
  89. Ertan, F. (2020). Teknoloji, inovasyon ve Ar-Ge’ye yönelik devlet politikaları ve TÜBİTAK tarafından verilen Ar-Ge desteklerinin firmalar üzerindeki etkisine yönelik analiz.[Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Maliye Ana Bilim Dalı. Ankara.
  90. Nindl, E., Napolitano, L., Confraria, H., Rentocchini, F., Fako, P., Gavigan, J. ve Tübke, A. (2024). The 2024 EU industrial R&D ınvestment scoreboard, publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/0775231, JRC140129.