This paper examines whether receipt of a Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) grant has a causal impact on plant total factor productivity (TFP). To tackle the problem of self-selection into the treatment group, propensity score matching is employed. In order to control for the endogeneity of other variables in the model, estimations are performed using the system GMM estimator. The results show that for low technology manufacturing, receipt of an RSA grant leads to a fall in TFP.
AghionPHowittP (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica60: 323–351.
2.
ArrowKJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies29: 155–173.
3.
BaumolW (1984) On productivity growth in the long run. Atlantic Economic Journal12: 4–10.
4.
BlundellRBondS (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics87: 115–143.
5.
BlundellRCosta DiasM (2009) Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. Journal of Human Resources44: 565–640.
6.
BlundellRDeardenLSianesiB (2005) Evaluating the effect of education on earnings: Models, methods and results from the National Child Development Survey. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)168: 473–512.
7.
BondS (2002) Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Cemmap Working Paper CWP09/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
8.
CabralL (2000) Introduction to Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
9.
CantwellJADunningJHJanneOEM (2004) Towards a technology-seeking explanation of U.S. direct investment in the United Kingdom. Journal of International Management10: 5–20.
10.
ChandlerAD (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
11.
CriscuoloCMartinROvermanH. (2012) The Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy. Science and Engineering Research Council Discussion Paper 98.
12.
DehejiaRWahbaS (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics84: 151–161.
13.
DomsMEJensenJB (1998) Comparing wages, skills, and productivity between domestically and foreign owned manufacturing establishments in the United States. In: BaldwinRELipseyRRichardsonJD (eds) Geography and Ownership as Bases for Economic Accounting. Chicago, IL: Chicago Press, pp. 235–258.
14.
DriffieldNLoveJH (2007) Linking FDI motivation and host economy productivity effects: Conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies38: 460–473.
15.
DunningJ (1988) Multinationals, Technology and Competitiveness. London: Unwin Hyman.
16.
DurantonGPugaD (2004) Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In HendersonJVJacques-FrançoisT (eds) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 2063–2117.
17.
FosfuriAMottaM (1999) Multinationals without advantages. Scandinavian Journal of Economics101: 617–630.
18.
FrölichM (2008) Parametric and nonparametric regression in the presence of endogenous control variables. International Statistical Review76: 214–227.
19.
GriffithR (1999) Using the ARD establishment level data to look at foreign ownership and productivity in the United Kingdom. Economic Journal109: 416–442.
20.
HarrisR (1989) The Growth and Structure of the UK Regional Economy 1963–85. Aldershot: Avebury.
21.
HarrisR (2005a) Economics of the workplace: Special issue editorial. Scottish Journal of Political Economy52: 323–343.
22.
HarrisR (2005b) Longitudinal Microdata Study of Business Support Programmes. Report to the Department for Trade and Industry.
23.
HarrisRDrinkwaterS (2000) UK plant and machinery capital stocks and plant closures. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics62: 243–265.
24.
HarrisRMoffatJ (2011) Plant-level Determinants of Total Factor Productivity in Great Britain, 1997–2006. Science and Engineering Research Council, Discussion Paper 64.
25.
HarrisRRobinsonC (2004) Industrial policy in Great Britain and its effect on total factor productivity in manufacturing plants, 1990–1998. Scottish Journal of Political Economy51: 528–543.
HartMDriffieldNRoperS. (2008) Evaluation of Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) in Scotland 2000–2004. Report to Scottish Government.
28.
HerfindahlO (1950) Concentration in the US steel industry. PhD Thesis, Columbia University.
29.
HymerS (1976) The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
30.
ImbensGWooldridgeJ (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature47: 5–86.
31.
JacobsJ (1970) The Economy of Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
32.
JacobsJ (1986) Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
33.
JarminR (1999) Government Technical Assistance Programs and Plant Survival: The Role of Plant Ownership Type. Working Papers 2, Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau.
34.
JovanovicBNyarkoY (1996) Learning by doing and the choice of technology. Econometrica64: 1299–1310.
35.
KelleyMRHarrisonB (1990) The subcontracting behavior of single vs. multiplant enterprises in US manufacturing: Implications for economic development. World Development18: 1273–1294.
36.
KrugmanP (1997) The Age of Diminished Expectations: US Economic Policy in the 1990s. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
37.
LeibensteinH (1966) Allocative efficiency vs. ‘x-efficiency’. The American Economic Review56: 392–415.
38.
LeuvenESianesiB (2003) PSMATCH2: Stata Module to Perform Full Mahalanobis and Propensity Score Matching, Common Support Graphing, and Covariate Imbalance Testing. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
39.
MarschakJAndrewsW (1944) Random simultaneous equations and the theory of production. Econometrica12: 143–205.
40.
MarshallA (1890) Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
41.
MoffatJ (2010) Regional Selective Assistance in Scotland: Does it make a difference to plant performance? PhD Thesis, Economics, University of Glasgow.
Van BeverenI (2007) Total Factor Productivity Estimation: A Practical Review. LICOS Discussion Papers 18207, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
49.
ZhaoZ (2004) Using matching to estimate treatment effects: Data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics86: 91–107.
