Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Innovation Canada: A Call to ActionFigure 6.1 Direct and Indirect Government Support of Business R&D, 2008 (except as noted)(percentage of GDP) a0.40% of GDP0.350.300.25Direct government fundingof BERDIndirect government supportthrough R&D tax incentives0.200.150.100.050.00CanadaKoreaBelgiumJapan (2007)HungaryAustria (2007)Ireland (2007)FranceNetherlands (2007)PortugalDenmarkTurkeyUnited KingdomAustralia (2007)United StatesNorwaySpain (2007)Czech RepublicSweden (2007)GermanyIcelandFinlandLuxembourg (2007)New Zealand (2007)ItalySwitzerlandSlovak RepublicPoland (2007)Mexico (2007)Greece (2005)aThe data illustrated in this figure do not include R&D tax incentives provided by sub-national governments — an importantconsideration, as in Canada provinces also provide tax support.Source: OECD (2010b).in effect a cash transfer to qualifying smallercompanies to help fund their R&D activity, andthus has something in common with a “directexpenditure” program. On the other hand, theSR&ED credit, whether refundable or not, isquite unlike the direct spending programsreviewed by the Panel, since the latter havetargeted criteria and are subject to assessmentof the merit of the proposed businessinnovation project, while the SR&ED programhas neither constraint.Although one might debate the fine points of“direct versus indirect” spending ratios, it isabundantly clear from the program datapresented in Chapter 3 that the federalgovernment’s mix of R&D support is very heavilyweighted to tax incentives — the SR&EDprogram accounts for about 70 percent ofthe value of the support provided by the60 programs reviewed by the Panel.International comparisons of tax incentiveprograms for R&D also demonstrate that theCanadian system is among the most generousin the world, particularly for small businesses(Figure 6.2). Comparisons including the subnationallevel indicate, moreover, that the6-2
Program Mix and DesignBox 6.1 Direct Support Versus Indirect SupportThe OECD (2010a, p. 76) defines direct and indirect funding as follows: “Government directR&D funding includes grants, loans and procurement. Government indirect R&D fundingincludes tax incentives such as R&D tax credits.” In practical terms, the main distinctionbetween direct and indirect support is that the latter is open ended and is available to allfirms, whereas the former is limited in overall funding and is allocated by programadministrators to specific projects, industries or regions. Direct support can therefore betargeted to specific areas, contrary to more neutral indirect measures.It follows that the principal advantage of direct instruments lies in the ability to focussupport on actors or activities considered more likely to achieve high social returns or toadvance specific policy goals. Notwithstanding the benefits associated with this ability tostrategically target resources, there are also some drawbacks to direct support measures. Inparticular, they generally involve more rigorous selection and evaluation processes, whichcan translate into higher administration costs for government and compliance costs forbeneficiaries. Moreover, they can raise some concerns around the desirability of governments“picking winners” in the marketplace.Conversely, indirect measures are advantageous for the opposite reason. Since they arenon-discriminatory and widely available across firms, sectors, fields and activities, theymore closely conform to market rationality. Indirect measures are also generally easier andcheaper to implement. The flip side, however, is that they are less amenable to being steeredtoward specific policy objectives.combination of federal and provincial tax creditsin Canada provides much higher subsidy ratesfor R&D than are available, for example, in USstates.The question therefore is whether Canada isrelying too heavily on “indirect” tax expenditurein its overall mix of business innovation/R&Dsupport. The great advantage of a tax-basedapproach is that, once basic eligibility criteria aremet, it does not discriminate on the basis ofsector, region or specific opportunity. Since theSR&ED program is based on the tax system, itoperates “automatically.” The tax incentivestimulates R&D generally, but leaves projectselection decisions to individual firms. Thegovernment does not try to pick the winners —the companies do. The strength of the programis also potentially its weakness. The tax credit isa blunt instrument. Not every R&D project willgenerate the same rate of social return; notevery R&D performer is equally in need ofstimulus or equally likely to be successful; andgovernments will often be well justified inseeking to promote, through targeted support,certain domains of innovation and R&D forstrategic purposes.Changing the Mix:More Direct SupportThe SR&ED program plays a fundamental role inlowering the costs of industrial R&D for firms,enhancing investment in R&D, and makingCanada a more attractive place to locate R&Dactivity. However, a key implication of this heavyreliance on the program is that federal supportfor innovation may be overweighted towardsubsidizing the cost of business R&D rather thanother important aspects of innovation. Inparticular, the Panel believes the federal6-3
Page 1 and 2:
Innovation Canada:A Call to ActionR
Page 3 and 4:
Innovation Canada:A Call to Action
Page 5:
Dear Minister,Please find attached
Page 8 and 9:
Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 35 and 36:
The Context of the ReviewChapterThe
Page 37 and 38:
The Context of the Reviewspreads wi
Page 39 and 40:
The Context of the ReviewBox 2.2 De
Page 41 and 42: The Context of the ReviewIn absolut
Page 43 and 44: The Context of the ReviewInnovation
Page 45 and 46: The Context of the Reviewdevelopmen
Page 47 and 48: The Context of the ReviewBox 2.4 Wh
Page 49 and 50: The Context of the ReviewProsperity
Page 51 and 52: The Context of the ReviewFigure 2.6
Page 53: The Context of the Review%115110105
Page 56 and 57: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
Page 69 and 70: Vision and PrinciplesChapterVision
Page 71 and 72: Vision and Principlesout in Chapter
Page 73 and 74: Program EffectivenessChapterProgram
Page 75 and 76: Program Effectivenessand processes.
Page 77 and 78: Program Effectivenessfull spectrum
Page 79 and 80: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.2 Rea
Page 81 and 82: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.4 Sat
Page 83 and 84: Program EffectivenessBox 5.1 Operat
Page 85 and 86: Program Effectivenessassessment of
Page 87 and 88: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.5 Dir
Page 89 and 90: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.6 Per
Page 91: Program Mix and DesignChapterProgra
Page 95 and 96: Program Mix and Designthe needs of
Page 97 and 98: Program Mix and DesignFigure 6.3 Ta
Page 99 and 100: Program Mix and DesignBox 6.3 Stack
Page 101 and 102: Program Mix and Designcapital costs
Page 103 and 104: Program Mix and Designportion of th
Page 105 and 106: Filling the GapsChapterFilling the
Page 107 and 108: Filling the GapsBox 7.1 Use of Proc
Page 109 and 110: Filling the GapsBox 7.2 Canadian In
Page 111 and 112: Filling the Gapscompetitive levels,
Page 113 and 114: Filling the GapsBox 7.4 Institutes
Page 115 and 116: Filling the GapsThe budgetary impli
Page 117 and 118: Filling the GapsSuch concerns are i
Page 119 and 120: Filling the GapsAngel InvestmentAt
Page 121 and 122: Filling the GapsWith the foregoing
Page 123 and 124: Filling the GapsBearing this in min
Page 125 and 126: Leadership for InnovationChapterLea
Page 127 and 128: Leadership for InnovationThe approp
Page 129 and 130: Leadership for Innovationinnovation
Page 131 and 132: ConclusionChapterConclusion9We are
Page 133 and 134: Programs in the ReviewAnnexPrograms
Page 135: Programs in the ReviewDepartment or
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148:
show all

Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?